The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Measuring Deprivation in Scotland: Developing a Long-Term Strategy: Final Report

Executive summary

Aims

This is the final report from a project to produce a long-term strategy for measuring deprivation in Scotland. The project was commissioned by the Central Statistics Unit of the Scottish Executive with three main objectives:

• To provide a clear definition and conceptual basis for measuring deprivation. It will also clarify how the term relates to others used to refer to social needs such as poverty, social exclusion or social injustice.
• To set out a long-term strategy for measuring area deprivation building on the recently published Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2003.
• To explore approaches to measuring deprivation for individuals. In particular, it will recommend whether individual measures should be developed as replacements to area-based measures or as additional to them.

Most importantly, the work was not to be limited by considerations of what data is currently available but was to work from the definition and conceptual framework to determine whether additional data should be collected.

Measures were not being constructed for a single purpose or context. Rather, an important part of our remit was to provide measures of deprivation which were applicable across Scotland and suitable for a range of possible uses. At the same time, the work is intended to facilitate more specific, local analyses by ensuring that as wide a variety of information is made available in as flexible a way as possible.

Research process

In addition to work reviewing existing research, consultations with a wide range of organisations and individuals have been central to the process of this research. An Interim Report was published setting out our initial thinking and this prompted a wide range of responses in writing and through attendance at public meetings. Responses were broadly positive but they have also led to some changes to our initial thinking.

As a result, this report highlights more clearly the extent to which existing individual and area-based measures capture rather different aspects of deprivation even though they share broadly the same definition of deprivation as a starting point. This reflects their different origins and uses. These differences are likely to continue and need to be borne in mind when comparisons are made between the two measures.

Key recommendations

Defining deprivation

We argue that the Executive should build on the work of Townsend and others in defining and measuring deprivation.

" People are relatively deprived if they cannot obtain, at all or sufficiently, the conditions of life - that is, the diets, amenities, standards and services - which allow them to play the roles, participate in the relationships and follow the customary behaviour which is expected of them by virtue of their membership of society. If they lack or are denied resources to obtain access to these conditions of life and so fulfil membership of society, they may be said to be in poverty." (Townsend, 1993: p.36)

Deprivation is a multi-dimensional concept, concerned not merely with material goods but also with the ability to participate in social life. It is a relative concept where standards are defined in relation to social norms or expectations. Poverty and deprivation are seen as interlinked as cause and outcome. Both financial resources and outcomes should be captured in measures of multiple deprivation.

Deprivation overlaps with terms such as social exclusion or social justice to some extent, although it clearly has a narrower focus. Deprivation measures can provide direct measures of some forms of exclusion or injustice and indirect evidence of other forms.

We do not argue that deprivation is in some way a better concept of social need than others but we do believe that it is important for its focus on the poor material and social living standards which people face as a result of poverty. In discussing how to measure deprivation, we have tried to keep to these core issues.

Individual and area approaches

The single most important recommendation emerging from this work is that the Executive should begin to develop a measure of deprivation at the individual level in addition to the existing area-based measures. These are complementary approaches, not alternatives. The current focus on area-based indices alone leaves a significant gap in our knowledge about absolute levels of deprivation, the distribution of deprivation between social groups or areas and trends over time. Furthermore, relating the two measures to each other may provide particularly useful insights into the nature and distribution of deprivation in Scotland so there are synergies to be gained from developing both. There was a very high degree of support for this development.

Practical constraints mean that different methods will be needed for each. Individual measures will be based on surveys. Area indices will continue to be based on indicators gathered from diverse sources as it would be prohibitively expensive to collect sufficient data through surveys.

The different methodologies and, importantly, the different origins and uses of the two types of measure mean that they have tended to be based on slightly different understandings of deprivation. The individual approach tends to retain a narrower focus on the "necessities of life" but many area-based deprivation indices have taken a broader approach, encompassing a wider range of problems associated with concentrations of deprivation or considered important for their impacts on deprived individuals. They incorporate a range of measures which are not directly related to individual living standards (crime, physical environment or geographic access to services). From the consultation process, it was clear that many people expected area measures to have this wider conceptual base. We therefore recommend that this difference is maintained even though it means that direct comparisons between the two approaches need to be made with care.

Scottish context

The report examines issues of Scottish distinctiveness and of variations within Scotland which might prevent a single measure having universal applicability. Differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK appear limited so approaches to the measurement of deprivation adopted elsewhere are likely to be useful in the Scottish context. Within Scotland, we recognise the diversity of situations in which people live, notably the differences across the urban-rural spectrum. At the same time, we argue that differences in the nature of deprivation across the country should not be exaggerated and that the application of a single measure to the whole country is therefore valid.

Area-based measures

As noted above, many area-based deprivation indices have taken a broader approach to defining deprivation than individual measures. We recommend that this be retained although we also argue that the distinction between domains which attempt to capture individual living standards and those which relate to wider area problems should be clearer. The full list of domains recommended for inclusion in the area-deprivation index and the reasons for their inclusion can be summarised as follows:

• current income; other financial resources - indirect measures of deprivation as they measure the key cause;
• housing - direct measure of aspect of material living standards;
• health; education - indirect measures of deprivation (both are strongly related as causes and as consequences of deprivation);
• crime and social disorder; physical environment; geographic access and telecommunications; and social relations and social capital - direct measures of a range of area characteristics associated with concentrations of deprivation or important for their impacts on deprived individuals.

We do not recommend that the employment domain is retained but, if it is, we recommend that it is treated as a measure of the level of financial resources available.

The work also considered the most appropriate spatial unit for the index. While wards were seen as a better spatial unit than postcode sectors, there were concerns that they were still too large in many areas. With the possibility of local government moving to elections on the basis proportional representation, the long-term future of wards is also in doubt. We therefore recommend that the Executive moves the deprivation index on to "small data units" developed for the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics work.

In terms of presentation of the results, there was widespread support from the consultation process for summaries of the data by age or life-stage groups as well as by domains. This requires disaggregation of the indicators by broad age group where possible. We also make a strong recommendation that the Executive publishes as many of the individual indicators for the index as possible to facilitate local analyses and, where possible, disaggregates these by gender.

Although technical issues were not part of our remit, we make a recommendation that the Executive commissions further work on the shrinkage technique, particularly if there is to be a move to smaller units. We also recommend that the Executive reconsiders the use of factor analysis to produce domain scores.

Individual measures

We recommend that individual measures follow the "consensual approach" developed for the Poverty and Social Exclusion 1999 survey. This would require original research in Scotland to establish the list of items regarded as "necessities of life" by the majority of the population, although this should build on existing work in the rest of Britain. Data on the number of people lacking these "necessities" could be collected through an existing large-scale survey. The Scottish Household Survey would be the most suitable option as this would enable a breakdown of the results at the level of local authorities to be provided.

We recommend that separate standards are used to measure adult and child deprivation. Research for the latter should build on the views and experiences of children. With the adult measure, it is important that the survey is able to disaggregate results for different social groups based on: age, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, household type and other factors such as health or employment status.

The method is based on the development of a single deprivation standard against which all adult individuals are assessed. In the Interim Report, we discussed whether it would be necessary to develop specific standards to reflect the needs, lifestyles or circumstances of different groups. At this stage, we recommend that the Executive re-examines this question once details of the single common standard have been established.

Relationships with other measures

At present, the Executive does not produce an individual measure of deprivation and has never done so, nor has the UK Government, so there are no direct overlaps with existing measures. In the case of the child deprivation measure, this might overlap with measures which the Department for Work and Pensions is developing as part of its work on measuring child poverty. We recommend that the Executive monitors that work closely.

These is also work on-going to develop deprivation indicators at European level. As that work is heavily constrained by the need to work across all 15 member states, there should be less emphasis on ensuring that any Scottish measure is congruent with measures it recommends.

List of specific recommendations

2. Definitions and conceptual framework

3. Individual and area approaches

4. Scottish context

5. Developing area-based measures

6. Developing individual measures

7. Relationships with other measures

« Previous | Contents | Next »