The Scottish Government

I find the interactive map very useful, however, it would be even more useful if (a) the data zones on the map contained the data zone numbers; (b) it was possible to print off the map showing the SIMD rankings etc; and (c) all domains included in the overall ranking are shown on the map (e.g. Housing is included in the SIMD 2006 but is not shown on the 2006 section of the interactive map but only on the 2004 - however, the new viewer may not know to look there.

We use this information a good deal already- but there are still issues for us- I agree that there is a need to analyse against urban bias- we are semi rural & this need to be considered for areas such as us not just Highlands / Borders/ D&G / and the islands . It takes a good deal of time to collate data to new wards ,and there is still a need to link more to other data sources so that we can access summaries of NHS/ DWP and labour market data to expand on teh SIMD when giving community planning partenrs and communities understandable information- a new field on public investmnet levels in SIMD areas would also help with baselines and progress measurements in CPP's I want to know ( and I'm sure others do too, whether all the talk about prioritising areas of deprivaiton is reflceted in the mainstream budgets of public bodies

One of the things I find hardest to do on the current site is identify the data zones I'm interested in. The number and ward / constituency details are there, but at the bottom of the mini - window which can make it tricky to note the relevant numbers. The SIMD data report has the 'nearest settlement' noted for each data zone - would it be possible to include that on the same screen?

One other point would be that given the focus on the lowest 15% of data zones which is still present through a lot of policy, it would be really helpful if the colour coding reflected this - bands of 15,30,45,60,etc then two 20% bands. Not consistent but I have endless trouble explaining to people that lowest band does not equal lowest 15%!

I would like to see clear, obvious links to each of the SIMD result reports. Although they are there, they are not particularly easy to find.

I'm not even going to look!

There are so many really bad sites around, I dread opening another.

Unless you can assure me that this site's been the subject of preparation by someone well-versed in ergonomics and engineering psychology.

See page 12 of The Herald, 2008-05-12, Monday, if you want to see what I mean. (Perhaps you already do, of course ...)

I am keen to start a debate on the content of the next SIMD, particularly with regard to using indicators that are effective at measuring aspects of deprivation equally in an urban and rural environment. We have a guideline called "Rural Proofing", in which all policies, documents etc written by SBC for the public domain have to be assessed for their impact on people living in the rural area. The SIMD is a very important index, as it affects so many aspects of resource allocation. If the SIMD is perceived to have an urban bias, then any sort of report containing funding allocation based on it will be perceived as unfair, particularly if we appear to lose out on funding as a result of our deprivation index. There are many different dimensions to the benefits and disadvantages of rural living, it's not all about dependency on benefits. For example, overcrowding would not be a suitable Housing Domain indicator in a rural area, whereas housing afforbility in relation to income versus house prices might apply to an urban and rural setting.
Do you have any suggestions on which indicators might be inadvertantly contributing to the SIMD's perceived "urban bias" and what they might be replaced with?