The role of the Indices of Multiple Deprivation in defining local needs

The release of the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2025 (IMD2025) brings new insight into levels of deprivation across England, with the last iteration having been released in 2019 (IMD2019).  

Here I will address some key questions: what has changed in deprivation these last five years, and how could the IMD help you address areas of need? 

Before we get into the changes – what is the IMD? 

The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is an official measure of relative deprivation used to rank 33,755 small areas, also known as Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) across England, (Scotland [SIMD], Wales [WIMD] and Northern Ireland [NIMDM] have their own).  

These rankings show the most deprived area to the least deprived area in relation to seven domains, with each informed by various indicators or datasets:  

1. Income 
2. Employment 
3. Education, Skills and Training 
4. Health and Disability 
5. Crime 
6. Barriers to Housing and Services  
7. Living Environment
   

What has changed in deprivation since 2019?

The broad methodological approach underpinning the IMD has not changed significantly since IMD2019. However, there have been a few amendments and enhancements, including:  

• 20 new indicators (out of 55 indicators)  
• 14 indicators were modified
• An altered approach to ‘shrinkage estimation’. Very simply put, shrinkage makes data for a small area more reliable by blending its score with the average score of a larger group of similar areas. 

But perhaps the most significant change of all between IMD2019 and IMD2025 is time. 

Without wishing to state the obvious, the changes that have occurred in those five years have been unprecedented and unlike most other periods between IMD releases.  

The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, government shifts, high inflation, and the economic effects of Brexit have impacted households and businesses. This makes it particularly interesting to see how these areas have been affected since 2019.  

For example, Employment deprivation is informed by various claimant statistics like Jobseekers Allowance and Universal Credit. Despite the administrative changes that have been made to benefits over the years, 2020-2021 saw a significant jump in many types of claims due to the pandemic.  

The social impact of this five-year era also carries weight in educational attainment, health, income inequality, and housing. Various councils have created “Economic Recovery”-based objectives in their policies to help conquer the aftereffects. 

The most deprived areas then and now (by rank)

As you would expect, rankings of the most and least deprived (on average) have changed in the span of five years.  

However, Blackpool and Manchester remain the two most deprived areas. In fact, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government notes that 82% of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the IMD2025 were also among the most deprived in the IMD2019 iteration. 

New entrants in the IMD2025 top 10 most deprived local authorities are Hastings, Burnley, Leicester, and Newham.

This persistence of deprivation in so many areas could be the result of many factors, including a lack of resources for communities in need, evolving job markets with skills not keeping up, poor housing availability, or even the distribution of wealth within a given area. 

So, are things improving or getting worse?  

The IMD is a relative measure of deprivation for neighbourhoods or small areas in England. Therefore, we cannot assume that only certain areas experience the worst deprivation.  

In fact, local authorities such as Barking and Dagenham dropped from 5th to 9th place, while Liverpool, previously 4th, dropped out of the top 10 entirely, moving to 12th.  

Additionally, Blackpool and Manchester may have remained in the top two deprivation rankings, but Middlesbrough and Birmingham have the highest proportion of small areas (LSOAs) in the most deprived 10% nationally. 

It may seem as though things are getting worse, as areas previously struggling with some of the worst deprivation are still struggling.

However, the improvement lies in the relativity of it all. A shift from first place to second may seem small, but since the challenges faced by these areas are different, that drop could be the result of significant changes.  

For instance, if an area experiencing high unemployment rates and low educational attainment engaged and invested in initiatives such as employability programmes, work experiences, apprenticeships and subsidies for courses, then it would have a significant impact on the local economy and the residents. However, relative to other areas, it may have only dropped a few places in the rankings. This should not diminish the significant strides the area has made.  

How could the IMD help you address areas of need? 

Having worked in local needs research for over three and a half years, IMD2019 has been a staple and my first port of call when seeking a bird’s-eye view of areas affected by high to severe deprivation.  

Until recently, IMD2019 was the most up-to-date measure of relative deprivation we had. This, of course, posed some constraints when it came to recency, such as when using 2019 deprivation data in 2023.  

In local needs research, the consensus is that nowhere is free from deprivation. Communities, wherever they are, need support. In fact, 65% of Local Authority Districts contain at least one of the most deprived neighbourhoods in England. 

While this tool is incredibly important and remains a mainstay in my own research, the IMD should be supplemented with additional datasets and research to enhance our understanding of local needs. It should be one of the tools in your box, particularly for seeing the areas impacted by high to severe deprivation and which domains of deprivation are most prevalent, to give direction towards your Social Value initiatives. 

So, if you are: 

• A Social Value practitioner trying to figure out where to focus your Social Value efforts

• A business looking to understand what type of support is needed in an area you are bidding for work 

... then your first two actions should be to:  

• Get a holistic view of local needs using the IMD. Armed with fresh data, the IMD has never been more vital in understanding where support is most needed. For this I would suggest using deciles, as they categorise the most to least deprived into digestible groups. Decile 1 represents the most deprived 10%, Decile 2 the most deprived 20%, and so on. Combine the insights of the IMD with additional data and policies to home in on the specific groups you could impact. For example, if an area experiences mainly high to severe employment deprivation, you can use additional data to identify whether those living with a disability also experience high unemployment in the area. 

• Explore the use of a Local Needs Analysis. This consists of a curated report on your area(s) of choice. Not only can IMD and secondary data be the foundation of your report, but exploring local partnerships and policies can provide additional nuance and be a great starting point to understanding area priorities for Social Value initiatives.  

If you want to learn more about how a Local Needs Analysis could benefit your organisation, Social Value Portal has a number of resources that will help:

🗎 Download our quick guide to Local Needs Analysis

💡See how your peers use Local Needs Analysis to inform their Social Value programmes