Indices of Deprivation 2015
Barriers to Housing and
Services Deprivation
A measure of Manchester’s relative level of deprivation produced by
DCLG
Version 2015/v1.1
Elisa Bullen
Public Intelligence
Performance, Research and Intelligence (PRI)
Chief Executive’s Department
Date: December 2015
Indices of Deprivation 2015
Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation domain
This report examines the Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation index, one of seven
domains of the Indices of Deprivation 2015 that feed into the 2015 Index of Multiple
Deprivation (IMD). This domain contributes 9.3% to the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation.
The Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation domain tries to measure the physical
and financial accessibility of housing and local services. The indicators fall into two subdomains: ‘geographical barriers’, which relate to the physical proximity of specific local
services, and ‘wider barriers’ which includes issues relating to access to housing such as
affordability, homelessness and overcrowding 1. The scores produced in this domain are a
combination of standardised rates 2 relating to each small area in England, called Lower
Super Output Areas (LSOAs), experiencing that type of deprivation. These scores have then
been ranked, where 1 is most deprived. The average score of the LSOAs in a district is
determined in order to rank Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation at district level.
Data on road distances to services as at 2014 have been averaged for the geographical
barriers sub-domain. The wider barriers sub-domain is taken from 2011 Census data for
household overcrowding, average acceptance rates over three years to 2014 for
homelessness, and a bespoke modelled estimate for housing affordability 3 .
Manchester relative to other districts
On the Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation domain, Manchester is ranked 57th
on the Rank of Average Score, scoring 25.9. This is a newly published domain measure for
2015 - in the previous IMD 2010 Manchester was not given a separate ranking but averaged
a score of 21.8. The two scores are broadly comparable at district level because the
indicators and methodology are mostly the same. The scores suggest that the level of
Barriers to Housing and Services deprivation has increased in Manchester between the two
time periods.
Table 1 ranks the ten most deprived districts and Manchester for context (out of 326) using
the 2015 Rank of Average Score, which places equal weighting on the two sub-domains.
Other than Birmingham, the top ten most deprived districts are all London boroughs.
Table 1: Top ten districts: Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation, Rank of average scores
Barriers to Housing and Services domain
Rank
Local Authority District
1 Newham
2 Waltham Forest
3 Brent
4 Tower Hamlets
5 Barking and Dagenham
6 Hackney
7 Hounslow
8 Birmingham
9 Westminster
10 Haringey
57 Manchester
Source: DCLG
1
Barriers to Housing and
Services average score
41.892
38.435
38.073
37.748
37.618
37.13
36.919
35.43
35.103
34.618
25.879
Analysis: Public Intelligence 2015
As defined in The English Indices of Deprivation 2015 Technical report Department for Communities and Local Government
See Appendix for details of indicators used
3
See Appendix for link to modelled estimate
2
Compared to the other core cities, Manchester is not the most deprived on this domain,
ranked closest to Liverpool and Sheffield using this ranking, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Manchester compared to other Core Cities, Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation domain 2015
Ranking on Housing and Services
domain
Barriers to Housing and Services Domain
Rank of average score - Core Cities
290
239
180
195
107
63
57
8
Source: DCLG, Analysis Public Intelligence, PRI 2015
Rank of 1 = most deprived
Compared to the other Greater Manchester districts, Manchester is the most deprived of the
districts, as shown in Figure 2. By contrast, Stockport is 316th. All Greater Manchester
districts apart from Manchester fall into the least deprived half of the country’s ranking.
Ranking on Housing and Services domain
Figure 2: Manchester compared to other Greater Manchester districts, Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation
Barriers to Housing and Services Domain
Rank of average score
Greater Manchester Districts
297
225
298
301
307
315
316
246
185
57
Rank of 1 = most deprived
Source: DCLG, Analysis Public Intelligence, PRI
The least deprived district in England on this domain is Blackpool with a score of just 8.343, in
complete contrast with being the most deprived district on the Health Deprivation and Disability
domain. Exploring the indices that make up the Index of Multiple Deprivation can expose
specific deprivation within a district, as Blackpool demonstrates.
Manchester ranks 136th in the Proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived 10% nationally in
the Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation domain. This rank is only concerned with
districts that have LSOAs in the top decile (the rest are all ranked as 264th, i.e. 263 districts
have an LSOA in the top 10% most deprived nationally). It determines the proportion within
each district that is in the most deprived 10% nationally and ranks them from 1 to 263 based
on largest proportion to smallest. Table 2 shows the ten highest ranked districts in this
ranking with Manchester at 136th for context. Newham is of note with 83.5% of this district’s
LSOAs in the most deprived decile, and, not surprisingly, most districts in this top ten are
again in London. This contrasts with Manchester which will be a reflection of housing
affordability.
None of the core cities is in the top ten on this ranking and all are the same as in Table 1
with the exception of Herefordshire and Richmondshire replacing Birmingham and
Westminster. This table also illustrates that only 8% (22 LSOAs) of Manchester’s
neighbourhoods are ranked within the most deprived 10% in the country for Barriers to
Housing and Services Deprivation.
Table 2: Districts with the top ten highest proportions of LSOAs in 10% most deprived in England
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
136
Source: DCLG
Local Authority District
Newham
Tower Hamlets
Waltham Forest
Hackney
Brent
Hounslow
Herefordshire, County of
Barking and Dagenham
Haringey
Richmondshire
Manchester
Barriers to Housing and Services
Proportion of LSOAs in most deprived
10% nationally
83.5%
61.8%
56.3%
53.5%
49.7%
46.5%
45.7%
44.6%
43.5%
41.2%
7.8%
Analysis: Public Intelligence 2015
There are seven indicators that feed into the scoring for this domain, and Manchester scores
better with most of these than in other domains. However, as a large city, Manchester will
inevitably score higher for the wider barriers element, especially for homelessness and
overcrowding. That said, many houses in Manchester are rented by housing associations,
who will not allow overcrowding. Housing affordability will be more of an issue in the City
Centre ward.
Being relatively lower ranked in these measures than on the other domains will have had
some tempering on Manchester’s high ranking in the IMD although the scores and ranks
from this index form 9.3% of the IMD scores compared to 22.5% from Income and 22.5%
from Employment.
Areas within Manchester
This section looks at specific areas in Manchester that have high rates of residents
experiencing Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation. The most deprived LSOA with in
this domain is LSOA 33654 (055C) which is mostly in City Centre ward 4, ranked 23rd out of
32,844 with a score of 56.801. This LSOA was originally part of the larger LSOA 5134 but
was split in 2011 because of population size. The other half of the original LSOA, now LSOA
33653, is 9,543rd so the division has polarised the deprivation. This domain needs careful
4
Geographically this LSOA crosses into Ancoats and Clayton but this is non-residential
consideration before drawing conclusions – the more deprived LSOA scores worse on the
wider barriers subdomain where some indicators are affected by population size. This LSOA
is the fifth largest in the city so this, combined with one of the higher scores in the wider
barriers subdomain, is a more likely explanation for the high ranking than the LSOA having
very high deprivation.
The most deprived LSOA on the wider barriers subdomain is LSOA 5239 in Ardwick, and
5171 in Didsbury East is most deprived (and the only LSOA falling into the most deprived
decile) on the geographical barriers subdomain. Viewing the subdomains individually can
give a more meaningful view of deprivation but again, in the case of the LSOA in Didsbury
East, it is the location and the indicators used giving misleading results. This LSOA is in
Parrs Wood, surrounded on three sides by fields and dissected by the A34 dual carriageway.
It has a primary school and a large Tesco within its bounds but there is no post office or GP
surgery nearby. Arguably, most residents in this LSOA would not feel deprived as there will
be good transport links to both and the Tesco will sell stamps, however, the indicators are
only concerned with distance.
The LSOA classed as the least deprived in Manchester on the Barriers to Housing and
Services Deprivation geographical barriers domain is LSOA 5166 (008E) in Crumpsall ward
ranked 32,808th, falling into the tenth decile (10% least deprived). There are 54 Manchester
LSOAs in the least deprived 10% of England in this subdomain. There are no Manchester
LSOAs in the least deprived 20% of England in the wider barriers subdomain and just LSOA
5157 (037D) ranked 24,631st and LSOA 5152 (029C) ranked 23,674th, both in Chorlton, that
fall into the eighth decile. It is the wider barriers subdomain that detrimentally influences the
overall Barriers to Housing and Services deprivation domain.
Map 1 shows that, unlike the Health, Income and Employment indices, the Manchester
LSOAs that are most deprived in the Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation domain
are not the same as those in the overall IMD shown in Map 2, and there is less severe
deprivation in this domain. Most of the more deprived LSOAs are centred on Miles Platting
and Newton Heath, the Benchill area of Sharston/Woodhouse Park and the West Gorton
area of Gorton North/Ardwick (N.B. this domain looks at the address of the resident not their
educational establishment).
Map 3 looks at the change in score between index in 2010 and 2015, ranged by numeric
point changes. This is not a direct comparison for several reasons: there were fewer LSOAs
in 2010 than in 2015 (where an LSOA has split since 2010 each of the new subdivisions has
been compared with the score of the original but this tends to make one new LSOA much
more deprived, one much less deprived) and there have been some changes to the housing
affordability indicator. However, the indicators are standardised so there is a degree of
consistency.
Bearing this in mind, 199 LSOAs have a higher (more deprived) score than in the indices in
2010 compared to 83 LSOAs with a lower score, meaning more LSOAs are relatively worse
(70.6%). Also, there were no LSOAs in the top 10% most deprived in England in 2010, in
2015 there were 22. The amount of change is greater in the deteriorating LSOAs with 24
LSOAs deteriorating by 10-15 points compared to the 5 that have improved by the same
amount and a further 8 LSOAs deteriorating between 15 and 25 points, with the most
deteriorated LSOAs being in the central areas in Ardwick, City Centre, Hulme and Moss
Side. Many central wards have all or most of their LSOAs with a worse score in 2015. All of
the LSOAs in Cheetham, Ardwick, Gorton South, Moss Side and Longsight have higher
(worse) scores in 2015. Conversely, all the LSOAs in Chorlton, and nearly all the LSOAs in
Moston and Didsbury West, have improved scores in 2015. Of special mention is LSOA
5249 (005C) in Moston which has improved from being in the most deprived 20% in 2010 to
the least deprived 30%, currently ranked 21,040th.
Map 1: Manchester LSOAs’ ranking on the Barriers to Housing and
Services Rank of Average Score
Map 2: Manchester LSOAs’ ranking on the IMD Rank of Average Score
Map 3: Relative change in LSOAs on Barriers to Housing and Services Domain index, Indices of
Deprivation 2010 compared to 2015
Table 3 shows which LSOAs (or equivalent if they have split between 2010 and 2015) were in the top 20%
most deprived (6,568 LSOAs) in both the indices of deprivation in 2010 and in 2015. The scores of 78.6%
of these LSOAs are worse than in 2010 but the three that are improved are part of the same original LSOA.
Table 3: 20% most deprived LSOAs on the Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation Domain in both 2010 and 2015
LSOA code
LSOA name 2011
Score 2010
Score 2015
Change in score
Ward
Old LSOA
E01033654
Manchester 055C
31.40
56.80
worse
City Centre
E01005134
E01033656
Manchester 057B
33.63
44.16
worse
City Centre
E01005127*
E01005066
Manchester 018E
33.19
40.16
worse
Ardwick
E01005066
E01005128
Manchester 055A
35.85
39.67
worse
City Centre
E01005128
E01033673
Manchester 059D
37.08
38.77
worse
Hulme
E01005211
E01033660
Manchester 059B
37.08
38.00
worse
Hulme
E01005211
E01005284
Manchester 026C
31.32
37.68
worse
Rusholme
E01005284
E01005171
Manchester 045E
32.00
37.15
worse
Didsbury East
E01005171
E01033683
Manchester 060D
33.63
36.99
worse
City Centre
E01005127
E01033681
Manchester 060B
33.63
33.68
worse
City Centre
E01005127
E01033662
Manchester 057C
33.63
33.24
better
City Centre
E01005127
E01005081
Manchester 039C
32.05
32.40
worse
Chorlton Park
E01005081
E01033682
Manchester 060C
33.63
31.76
better
City Centre
E01005127
E01033677 Manchester 060A
33.63
31.20 better
* former LSOA E01005127 was split into six smaller LSOAs in 2011
City Centre
E01005127
Wards within Manchester
Table 4: Rank of average LSOA Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation score by ward
Ward
Population Weighted Average score
Ardwick
39.889
City Centre
38.661
Moss Side
35.388
Rusholme
32.818
Cheetham
31.837
Longsight
31.388
Hulme
29.842
Ancoats and Clayton
28.777
Fallowfield
27.626
Old Moat
27.425
Bradford
26.297
Harpurhey
26.173
Gorton South
25.802
Miles Platting and Newton Heath
24.867
Withington
24.824
Gorton North
24.720
Woodhouse Park
24.496
Higher Blackley
23.885
Charlestown
23.636
Sharston
23.566
Crumpsall
23.328
Whalley Range
22.550
Northenden
21.698
Levenshulme
21.238
Baguley
20.609
Chorlton Park
20.456
Burnage
20.159
Didsbury West
19.851
Brooklands
19.774
Moston
17.703
Didsbury East
17.166
Chorlton
14.236
Analysis Public Intelligence, PRI
Ward rank within Manchester
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Source: DCLG 2015
Table 4 shows the crude average LSOA scores at ward level, which is hindered by LSOAs not being
coterminous with ward boundaries. The ‘best-fit’ of an LSOA to the ward it mostly falls into based on
residences within it has been calculated 5. The average scores of the LSOAs in each ward indicate that
Ardwick is the most deprived ward in Manchester on this domain, followed by City Centre and Moss Side 6.
Table 5 looks at the number of LSOAs attributed to each ward in Manchester that fall into the 10% most
deprived LSOAs in England. There are only 22 LSOAs in Manchester (7.8%) in the most deprived decile of
the Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation domain, found in ten wards, around the inner city, Higher
Blackley, Gorton South and Didsbury East in Manchester.
Table 5: Proportion of wards with LSOAs in the most deprived 10% of England
Ward
Number of LSOAs in
most deprived 10% of
England
% of ward's LSOAs in
most deprived 10% of
England
Ancoats and Clayton
11
1
9.1%
Ardwick
10
6
60.0%
Baguley
9
0
none
Bradford
9
0
none
Brooklands
8
0
none
Burnage
9
0
none
Charlestown
9
0
none
Cheetham
11
2
18.2%
Chorlton
8
0
none
Chorlton Park
9
0
none
City Centre
11
4
36.4%
Crumpsall
8
0
none
Didsbury East
9
1
11.1%
Didsbury West
8
0
none
Fallowfield
7
0
none
Gorton North
10
0
none
Gorton South
9
1
11.1%
10
0
none
Higher Blackley
9
1
11.1%
Hulme
9
3
33.3%
Levenshulme
8
0
0.0%
Longsight
7
0
none
Miles Platting and Newton Heath
9
0
none
Moss Side
7
2
28.6%
Moston
9
0
none
Northenden
9
0
none
Old Moat
9
0
none
Rusholme
7
1
none
Sharston
10
0
none
Whalley Range
9
0
none
Withington
7
0
none
Woodhouse Park
8
0
Harpurhey
Analysis Public Intelligence, PRI
5
Number of LSOAs
assigned to ward
none
Source: DCLG 2015
derived by Manchester City Council to measure deprivation in Manchester wards as a guide only. Ward level data are not officially recognised by
DCLG. All commentary regarding wards is based on these derivations. The denominator used for ward level is the sum of the LSOAs’ population
within that ward. Where a LSOA straddles a ward boundary, the proportion of properties in that LSOA located in both wards has been calculated
using the Local Land and Property Gazetteer and those proportions have been applied to the total population of the LSOA to attribute population to
each ward.
6
some LSOAs will have their scores double-counted where they appear in more than one ward
Ardwick is highlighted because it has by far the highest number of LSOAs in Manchester that are in this
most deprived decile. Ardwick also has the highest score indicated in Table 4, and it has the highest
proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived decile at 60% of the ward’s LSOAs. Inevitably, at a wider level,
the Central Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF) 7 area has the highest proportion of LSOAs in the
most deprived decile in England because of Ardwick at 30% compared to the Wythenshawe SRF 8 where
there are no LSOAs in the most deprived 10% of England. The other SRFs range between 1.2-5.4%.
While Didsbury East has an LSOA in the most deprived decile, and the only Manchester LSOA in the most
deprived decile on the ‘geographical barriers’ subdomain, it also has a LSOA in the least deprived decile
illustrating why ward level data needs to be interpreted with care. The geographical barriers subdomain is
concerned with physical proximity of local services such as GP surgeries, post offices, primary schools
and supermarkets.
Ardwick fares so badly at ward level because of the ‘wider barriers’ subdomain, with 10 LSOAs in the most
deprived decile on the subdomain. Cheetham has 9 LSOAs and City Centre ward has 8 LSOAs in the most
deprived decile; this subdomain is concerned with overcrowding, homelessness and affordability. N.B. the
homelessness element of this subdomain will give misleading results – the district’s homeless population
rate is applied to each LSOA’s number of households equally, therefore high-density LSOAs, like those in
Cheetham and City Centre, will end up with a disproportionate allocation of homeless people which may
affect scores (although the City Centre will attract a higher number in reality). Ardwick does not have
particularly high numbers of households, being about average for the city, however, both Ardwick and
Cheetham wards have overcrowding issues according to Census figures, with many households recorded
as having two or more rooms fewer than required (including student lets); a similar situation is seen in
Longsight, which has the next highest number of LSOAs in this decile.
7
8
Ardwick, Hulme, Moss Side, Longsight and Rusholme wards
Baguley, Brooklands, Northenden, Sharston and Woodhouse Park wards
Appendix
Indicators used in the Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation domain
The indicators
Geographical Barriers sub-domain
Road distance to a post office: A measure of the mean distance to the closest post office for people
living in the Lower-layer Super Output Area
Road distance to a primary school: A measure of the mean distance to the closest primary school
for people living in the Lower-layer Super Output Area
Road distance to a general store or supermarket: A measure of the mean distance to the closest
supermarket or general store for people living in the Lower-layer Super Output Area
Road distance to a GP surgery: A measure of the mean distance to the closest GP surgery for
people living in the Lower-layer Super Output Area
Wider Barriers sub-domain
Household overcrowding: The proportion of all households in a Lower-layer Super Output Area
which are judged to have insufficient space to meet the household’s needs.
Homelessness: Local authority district level rate of acceptances for housing assistance under the
homelessness provisions of the 1996 Housing Act, assigned to the constituent Lower-layer Super
Output Areas.
Housing affordability: Difficulty of access to owner-occupation or the private rental market, expressed
as the inability to afford to enter owner-occupation or the private rental market.
Indicator details
Road distance to a post office
Road distance to a primary school
Road distance to a general stores or supermarket
Road distance to a GP surgery
The four road distance indicators were chosen for the Indices of Deprivation 2000 and retained in each
subsequent update as they relate to key services that are important for people’s day-to-day life and to
which people need to have good geographical access. All road distance indicators are constructed in
the same way.
The indicators are defined as an average road distance measured in kilometres and calculated initially
at Output Area level 9.
The grid referenced locations of Post Offices were supplied by Post Office Ltd (for March 2014). All
Post Office branches were included.
The postcoded locations of primary schools were obtained from the Department for Education’s
Edubase system (July 2014). These postcodes were then geocoded using Code-Point Open (May
2014 version) and the ONS Postcode Directory (May 2014 version). All schools classified as ‘open’ or
‘open but proposed to close’ that are also ‘primary’ or ‘all through’ were included. In terms of the type
of establishment, schools were included that are classified as local authority maintained schools,
academies or free schools.
The grid referenced locations of food shops were obtained from the Ordnance Survey Points of
Interest dataset (for March 2014). The definition of food shop includes supermarket chains,
9
For more information about Output Areas see:
www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=nessgeography/neighbourhoodstatisticsgeography
glossary/neighbourhood-statistics-geography-glossary.htm#O
convenience stores and independent supermarkets. This includes concessions such as food shops
within petrol stations, but administrative offices are removed.
The postcodes of GP premises were obtained from the Health and Social Care Information Centre
(May 2014 release). These postcodes were geocoded using Code-Point Open (May 2014 version), the
ONS Postcode Directory (May 2014 version) and a small number of manual assignments. The dataset
of GPs used to construct the indicator is a list of all active medical practices and prescribing cost
centres (numbering approximately 8,200). It does not capture the size of a practice, which varies from
that of a single practitioner to a large surgery with many GPs and additional health care professionals.
Because healthcare and education are a responsibility for the devolved administrations, only GPs and
primary schools located in England have been taken into account when constructing the English
Indices of Deprivation. However, food shops and post offices in mainland UK were included, so that
account can be taken of services just within the Scottish or Welsh borders.
A bespoke geographic information system application was used to calculate the road distance to the
closest service from the population weighted centroid of each Output Area. To create an average road
distance for the Lower-layer Super Output Area, a population-weighted mean of the Output Area road
distances was used. Each Output Area score was weighted according to the proportion of the Lowerlayer Super Output Area population that is within the Output Area, and the weighted scores summed.
The Output Area level population estimates used for population-weighting were obtained from the 2011
Census 10.
Household overcrowding
The indicator is the proportion of households in a Lower-layer Super Output Area that are classed as
overcrowded according to the definition below. The numerator is the number of overcrowded
households in the Lower-layer Super Output Area, while the denominator is the number of households
in the same area. Both were taken from the 2011 Census. Shrinkage was applied to the indicator.
The Census 2011 ‘occupancy rating’ provides a measure of whether a household’s accommodation is
overcrowded or under-occupied. There are two measures of occupancy rating, one based on the total
number of rooms in a household’s accommodation, and one based only on the number of bedrooms.
As for the Indices of Deprivation 2010, the household overcrowding indicator uses the occupancy
rating based on rooms. This relates the actual number of rooms in a dwelling to the number of rooms
required by the household, taking account of the ages of, and relationships between, household
members.
The room requirement 11 used in the occupancy rating states that every household needs a minimum of
two common rooms, excluding bathrooms, with bedroom requirements that reflect the composition of
the household. The occupancy rating of a dwelling is expressed as a positive or negative figure,
reflecting the number of rooms in a dwelling that exceed the household’s requirements, or by which the
home falls short of its occupants’ needs.
All statistics derived from the 2011 Census and published by the Office for National Statistics are
classified as National Statistics and comply fully with the National Statistics Code of Practice.
Homelessness
This local authority district level indicator is expressed as the rate of acceptances for housing
assistance under the homelessness provisions of housing legislation (as defined below). Although the
Indices of Deprivation 2010 indicator used data for a single year, the updated indicator was
constructed from the average of data for three years (2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to
10
Each road distance indicator uses the total population for population-weighting, with the exception of the road distance to a
primary school where the population of children aged 4 to 11 was used.
11
For worked examples of how the room requirement is calculated, see: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guidemethod/census/2011/census-data/2011-census-user-guide/quality-and-methods/quality/quality-notes-andclarifications/index.html
increase the robustness of the indicator. The homelessness data used in the numerator is published by
the Department for Communities and Local Government. The denominator is the local authority district
count of households from the 2011 Census, which is the latest date for which this data is available.
Homelessness is defined as applications made to local housing authorities under the homelessness
provisions of housing legislation where a decision was made and the applicant was found to be eligible
for assistance (acceptances). It therefore excludes any households found to be ineligible.
The raw data used to construct the indicator was the same as those used to produce published
National Statistics. Local authority district rates were assigned to the constituent Lower-layer Super
Output Areas, with each such area in a district given the same rate. As this data is available at local
authority district level, shrinkage was not applied to this indicator.
Housing affordability
The housing affordability indicator is a measure of the inability to afford to enter owner-occupation or
the private rental market. The indicator is made up of two components relating to housing affordability:
one component which measures difficulty of access to owner-occupation, and one component which
measures difficulty of access to the private rental market. The private rental component considers
whether people can afford to rent in the market without assistance from Housing Benefit. The two
components were constructed separately.
The indicator is a modelled estimate based on house prices and rents in the relevant Housing Market
Area 12 and modelled incomes at Lower-layer Super Output Area level with a 2012 time point. The main
data sources are the Family Resources Survey for household incomes and composition, the Regulated
Mortgage Survey (Council for Mortgage Lenders) and Land Registry for house prices, and the
Valuation Office Agency for market rents. Other sources include a range of Census and other
published data at Lower-layer Super Output Area level, and indicators at local authority district level
including the Annual Population Survey and the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings.
The target group is households where the head is aged under 40 13. This aims to capture the cohort of
households entering the housing market based on the recognition that most first time buyers and
renters are in the younger adult age group. To increase the robustness of the indicator, the age cut-off
has changed since the Indices of Deprivation 2010, from 35 to 40, resulting in a larger number of
cases in the relevant surveys with which to produce modelled estimates.
Households (that is the first benefit units in the household) are assigned to dwelling size groups based
on their bedroom requirements as under the standard UK ‘bedroom standard’ 14. Affordability criteria
are broadly the same as for the Indices of Deprivation 2010. The threshold house prices and rents
were based on the lower quartile of all sale prices/rents within size groups (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 or more
bedrooms) at Housing Market Area level. 15The lower tier of Housing Market Areas was used, with
Lower-layer Super Output Area level price and local authority level rent data apportioned to Housing
Market Areas (lower-tier Housing Market Areas are described in Jones et al (2010), see footnote and
Appendix I).
12
Jones, Coombes and Wong (2010) The Geography of Housing Market Areas in England, undertaken for the former National
Housing and Planning Advice Unit and published by the Department for Local Government and Communities
www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-market-areas. For further details see
www.ncl.ac.uk/curds/research/defining/NHPAU.htm. The geography of HMAs is described in Appendix I.
13
Technically, the head of household is known as the “Household Reference Person”, defined as the highest income
householder without regard to gender.
14
The standard is defined in the Housing (Overcrowding) Bill 2003 and in summary allocates a bedroom for each couple
and for each additional adult, and for each child or pair of children, provided that children over 10 do not have to share with
the opposite sex. For the renting component, a single person household aged under 35 is deemed to need only a bedroom
in a shared dwelling (using threshold rents available for a ‘0-bedroom’ unit).
15
The primary criterion for buying is based on lending multipliers, assuming a 95% mortgage and ignoring deposit
constraints. For renting, the primary criterion is a ratio of rent to gross income of 25%, The secondary criterion for both
buying and renting is that net income after housing cost should exceed 1.2 times the Housing Benefit Applicable Amount
(HBAA) for the relevant household unit (DWP Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Circular HB/CTB A1/2012, Appendix
A, Annexe 2).
Income is defined as the income of the ‘first benefit unit’ in the household, excluding income from
means-tested benefits. 16 Income levels were estimated in stages, following similar lines to a study by
Bramley and Watkins 17 for the Improvement Service for Scottish local government, which estimated
income and poverty measures for Scottish Datazones. Individual-level predictive regression models
were developed based on income levels for individuals and households in the Family Resources
Survey, applied to small areas using equivalent variables from Census and other sources at Lowerlayer Super Output Area level; and constrained using the Office for National Statistics’ ‘groups’ of
similar Lower-layer Super Output Areas in stronger or weaker housing markets 18.
In order to combine the two components into a single indicator of housing affordability, each
component was standardised by ranking and transforming to a normal distribution. The two
components were then combined with equal weights to create the housing affordability indicator.
Combining the indicators to create the domain
The relevant indicators within each of the sub-domains were then standardised by ranking and
transforming to a normal distribution, and combined using equal weights. The sub-domains were then
standardised by ranking and transforming to an exponential distribution and combined with equal
weights to create the overall domain score.
Changes since the Indices of Deprivation 2010
The indicators in the domain remain the same as in the Indices of Deprivation 2010, apart from
changes to the housing affordability indicator including:
• broadening the measure to include affordability of the private rental market;
• improving the income estimation methodology, and producing the indicator at Lower-layer
Super Output Area level, rather than local authority districts; and
• using local Housing Market Areas as the reference area.
Other minor changes to this domain, for example due to changes in available data, have been
explained above.
16
The first benefit unit is defined as the main householder and any partner and dependent children, where the
household reference person is aged under 40. Other adults present in any ‘complex’ households are separate benefit
units, and their income is not included because these would not be considered reckonable income for the purposes of
obtaining a mortgage and because it is assumed that it is the core benefit unit that would be seeking to buy or rent an
appropriate housing unit. For the same reason, the room requirements of other adults in a ‘complex’ household are
not included when constructing the indicator.
17
Bramley, G. and Watkins, D. (2013) Local Incomes and Poverty in Scotland: developing local and small area estimates and exploring patterns of
income distribution, poverty and deprivation, Report of Research for the Improvement Service on behalf of four Local Authorities (Edinburgh,
Falkirk, Fife and Highland) and the Scottish Government. http://www.improvementservice.org.uk/library/download-
document/3838-local-incomes-and-poverty-in-scotland/.
Lower-layer Super Output Areas were classified according to whether the Housing Market Area to which they belong
has relatively lower or higher house prices. This classification was then combined with the Office
18