THE 2011 POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX FOR SMALL AREAS (SA) Conceptual Underpinnings

Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke

Dublin, August 2012

THE PURPOSE OF COMPOSITE DEPRIVATION INDICES

1.

It is difficult to simultaneously comprehend the spatial distribution of multiple indicators at multiple points in time 2.

For practical purposes, there is a need for a single indicator which draws a variety of observations together 3.

Such indices can provide the basis for the effective targeting of the most disadvantaged areas 4.

Such indices can provide a means by which to assess changes over time, and facilitate monitoring and evaluation 5.

However, it is important that such indices enjoy broad support amongst all key stakeholders, including government departments, state agencies, community representatives and the broader public

THE PURPOSE OF DEPRIVATION INDICES Deprivation Index Small Area Data in General To provide insights into the spatial distribution of poverty and deprivation To identify the specific needs of localities To provide a basis for consensus-building on targeting need in particular areas To improve specific services or the integration of multiple services at local level To facilitate inter-temporal comparison As a proxy for socio-economic status (SES) when modelling health and other outcomes To inform policies that address poverty and deprivation at local level n/a

REQUIREMENTS Deprivation Index Data ought to be concise (i.e. brief but comprehensive) Data need to be consistent for all spatial units Data needs to be consistent over time Data ought to be timely Ought to have precise statistical properties (ideally normally distributed) Small Area Data in General Should be more comprehensive Greater emphasis on domains (to inform sectoral policies) May include data which are not available for all areas Does not necessarily have to be consistent over time n/a

MEASUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS Deprivation Index Data have to be available at identical units of analysis Near-normal distribution of input variables Small Area Data in General May comprise data at different levels of spatial aggregation Overall less restrictive May require transformations n/a Requires dimensional analysis to avoid double counting Requires methods and weights for combining into single index scores n/a n/a

A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF POVERTY

 Relative Poverty “People are living in poverty if their income and resources (material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by Irish society generally.

” (Government of Ireland, NAPS, 1997)  Relative Deprivation “The fundamental implication of the term deprivation is of an absence – of essential or desirable attributes, possessions and opportunities which are considered no more than the minimum by that society.

” (Coombes et al., DoE – UK, 1995)

TRADITIONAL APPROACH: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA)

 Ordinary Factor Analysis (EFA) reduces variables to a smaller number of underlying Dimensions or Factors V1 F1 V2 V3 V4 V5 F2 V6  EFA is essentially an exploratory technique; .i.e. data-driven  all variables load on all factors  the structure matrix is the (accidental) outcome of the variables available  EFA cannot be used to compare outcomes over time

NEW APPROACH: CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA)

 Confirmatory Factor Analysis also reduces observations to the underlying Factors, however d 1 d 2 d 3 d 4 V1 V2 V3 V4 L1 d 5 V5 L2 d 6 V6  CFA requires a strong theoretical justification before the model is specified  the researcher decides which of the observed variables are to be associated with which of the latent constructs  variables are conceptualised as the imperfect manifestations of the latent concepts  CFA model allows the comparison of outcomes over time  CFA facilitates the objective evaluation of the quality of the model through fit statistics

STRENGTHS OF CFA-BASED DEPRIVATION INDICES

          true multidimensionality, based on theoretical considerations provides for an appropriate treatment of both urban and rural deprivation no double-counting rational approach to indicator selection uses variety of alternative fit indices to test model adequacy identical structure matrix across multiple waves identical measurement scale across multiple waves true distances to means are maintained (i.e. measurement, not ranking) distinguishes between measurement of absolute and relative deprivation allows for true inter-temporal comparisons

OVERVIEW OF SUCCESSIVE DEPRIVATION INDICES, HAASE & PRATSCHKE 1996 - 2012 SA n=18,488 ED n = 3,409 NUTS 4 n = 34 NUTS 3 n = 8 91 91 91 96 96 96 86 86 86 91 91 91 96 96 96 06 01 NI 91 96 02 91 96 02 06 06 01 NI 06 11 06 11 91 96 02 06 11 06 11 91 96 02 91 96 02 06 06 01 NI 91 96 02 06 11 06 11 91 96 02 91 96 02 06 06 01 NI 91 96 02 06 11 06 11 NUTS 2 n = 2 91 96 86 91 96 91 96 02 91 96 02 06 06 01 NI 91 96 02 06 11 06 11 NUTS 1 n = 1 91 96 86 91 96 91 96 02 91 96 02 06 06 01 NI

Haase

et al.

, 1996 Haase, 1999 Pratschke & Haase, 2001 Pratschke & Haase, 2004 Haase & Pratschke, 2005

Level at which model is estimated Level to which data is aggregated

Haase & Pratschke, 2008 Haase & Pratschke, 2010 Haase & Pratschke, 2011

91 96 02 06 11 06 11

Haase & Pratschke, 2012

THE UNDERLYING DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE

 Demographic Decline (predominantly rural)  population loss and the social and demographic effects of emigration (age dependency, low education of adult population)  Social Class Deprivation (applying in rural and urban areas)  social class composition, education, housing quality  Labour Market Deprivation (predominantly urban)  unemployment, lone parents, low skills base

THE BASIC MODEL OF THE POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX

d 1 d 2 d 3 d 4 d 5 d 6 d 7 d 8 d 9 d 10 Age Dependency Rate Population Change Primary Education only Third Level Education Persons per Room Professional Classes Semi- and Unskilled Classes Lone Parents Male Unemployment Rate Female Unemployment Rate Demographic Growth Social Class Composition Labour Market Situation

SOLUTION 2: A LONGITUDINAL SEM MODEL

2006 2011 d 7 d 8 d 10 d 11 d 16 d 12 d 13 d 9 d 14 d 15 Age Dependency Rate 2006 Population Change 2002-06 Primary Education only 2006 Third Level Education 2006 Persons per Room 2006 Professional Classes 2006 Semi- and Unskilled Classes 2006 Lone Parents 2006 Male Unemployment Rate 2006 Female Unemployment Rate 2006 -0.61

0.46

-0.63

0.53

-0.51

0.24

0.69

-0.57

0.95

0.20

-0.86

-0.65

-0.76

-0.68

0.14

2006 Demographic 0.17

0.82

Growth 2006 Social Class Composition 2006 Labour Market Situation

0.92

0.89

0.61

-0.06

0.03

0.10

0.04

0.03

0.35

2011 Demographic Growth 2011 Social Class Composition  1 -0.17

-0.54

0.36

-0.59

0.46

0.49

-0.58

0.73

-0.51

0.97

0.18

-0.89

 2 0.01

2011 Labour Market Situation 0.63

-0.64

-0.86

-0.74

 3 Age Dependency Rate 2011 Population Change 2006-11 Primary Education only 2011 Third Level Education 2011 Persons per Room 2011 Professional Classes 2011 Semi- and Unskilled Classes 2011 Lone Parents 2011 Male Unemployment Rate 2011 Female Unemployment Rate 2011 d 17 d 18 d 20 d 21 d 26 d 22 d 23 d 19 d 24 d 25

COMPARISON OF MODELS

• Both the means model and the longitudinal model rely on the same factor model • Using the means model, it is possible to measure the change that occurred in the mean of the latent variables between 2006 and 2011 • Both the means model and the longitudinal model impose equality constraints on all factor loadings • The Pobal HP Deprivation Index is estimated using a multiple group means and covariance structure model

DISTRIBUTION OF HP INDEX SCORES, 2006 AND 2011

Number of SAs 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -40 -35 -30 most disadvantaged -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 most affluent 40 The Figure shows the distribution of the 2006 and 2011 Absolute HP Index Scores in 5-point ranges (one half of a standard deviation)

SMOOTHED DISTRIBUTION OF ABSOLUTE HP INDEX SCORES, 2006 AND 2011

Number of SAs 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -40 -35 -30 -25 most disadvantaged -20 -15 -10 -5 0 2006 2011 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 most affluent The Figure shows the decline by 7.0 points in the mean of the Absolute HP Index Scores between 2006 and 2011 (or 0.7 of a standard deviation)

SMOOTHED DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HP INDEX SCORES, 2006 AND 2011

Number of SAs 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -40 -35 -30 -25 most disadvantaged -20 -15 -10 -5 0 2006 2011 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 most affluent The Figure shows the distribution of the 2006 and 2011 Relative HP Index Scores, after de-trending the absolute scores by the difference in means

MAPPING DEPRIVATION

most disadvantaged most affluent

marginally below the average disadvantaged very disadvantaged extremely disadvantaged marginally above the average affluent very affluent extremely affluent

COMPARISON OF 2006 AND 2011 ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES

COMPARISON OF 2006 AND 2011 RELATIVE INDEX SCORES

ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2006

Absolute Index Score 2006 Haase & Pratschke 2012 30 to 50 (22) 20 to 30 (293) 10 to 20 (2513) 0 to 10 (6857) -10 to 0 (5925) -20 to -10 (2294) -30 to -20 (564) -60 to -30 (20)

ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2011

Absolute Index Scores 2011 Haase & Pratschke 2012 30 to 50 20 to 30 (2) (70) 10 to 20 (838) 0 to 10 (3397) -10 to 0 (7181) -20 to -10 (5132) -30 to -20 (1719) -60 to -30 (149)

COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991 AND 2006

 Shows the massive increase in disadvantage in wake of the recession after the 2006 Census, affecting literally every part of the country.

RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2006

Relative Index Score 2006 Haase & Pratschke 2012 30 to 50 (22) 20 to 30 (293) 10 to 20 (2513) 0 to 10 (6857) -10 to 0 (5925) -20 to -10 (2294) -30 to -20 (564) -60 to -30 (20)

RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2011

Relative Index Score 2011 Haase & Pratschke 2012 30 to 50 (30) 20 to 30 (474) 10 to 20 (2412) 0 to 10 (6232) -10 to 0 (6483) -20 to -10 (2408) -30 to -20 (447) -60 to -30 (2)

COMPARISON OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991 AND 2006

  The pattern between affluence and disadvantage, whereby affluence is greatest in the urban peripheries and gradually declining towards more rural locations, remains broadly intact.

 There is some indication that the reach of the affluent commuter belts has somewhat diminished.

Within the Greater Dublin Area, there is a marked shift in the location of the most affluent areas. Whereas in 2006 the Western part of the Region scored high in affluence, in 2011 this is again primarily concentrated in Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown.

CHANGE IN RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2006-2011

Change in Relative HP Index Scores, 2006-2011 Haase and Pratschke 2012 improvement by more than 30 points improvement by 20 to 30 points (15) (45) improvement by 10 to 20 points (405) improvement by less than 10 points (8195) no data in 2006 (252) deterioration by less than 10 points (9210) deterioration by 10 to 20 points (350) deterioration by 20 to 30 points deterioration by more than 30 points (14) (2)