Transcript Conceptual Underpinnings

THE IRISH DEPRIVATION MEASURES
Conceptual Underpinnings
Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke
Revision, June 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
To inform policies that address poverty and
deprivation at local level
As a proxy for socio-economic status (SES)
when modelling health and other outcomes
n/a
COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENTS
Deprivation Index
Small Area Data in General
Data ought to be concise (i.e. brief but
comprehensive)
Should be more comprehensive
Data needs to be consistent for all spatial units
Greater emphasis on domains (to inform
sectoral policies)
Data needs to be consistent over time
May include data which is not available for all
areas
Data ought to be timely
Does not necessarily have to be consistent over
time
Ought to have precise statistical properties
(ideally normally distributed)
n/a
COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENT
Deprivation Index
Small Area Data in General
Data has to be available at identical units of
analysis
May comprise data at different levels of spatial
aggregation
Near-normal distribution of input variables
Overall less restrictive
May require transformations
n/a
Requires dimensional analysis to avoid double
counting
n/a
Requires methods and weights for combining
into single index scores
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 does not account for measurement error (v1-v6 are assumed to be perfect indicators)
 EFA can not be used to compare outcomes over time
NEW APPROACH: CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
(CFA)
 Confirmatory Factor Analysis also reduces observations to the underlying Factors, however
 variables are conceptualised as the (imperfect) manifestations of underlying or latent concepts
d1
V1
d2
V2
d3
V3
d4
V4
d5
V5
d6
V6
L1
L2
 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 assumed to be imperfect manifestations (i.e. allowing for measurement error)
 CFA model allows the comparison of outcomes over time
 CFA facilitates the objective evaluation of the quality of the model through fit statistics
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 AFFLUENCE AND DEPRIVATION
d1
Age Dependency Rate
d2
Population Change
d3
Primary Education only
d4
Third Level Education
d5
Professional Classes
d6
Persons per Room
d7
Lone Parents
d8
Semi- and Unskilled Classes
d9
Male Unemployment Rate
d10
Female Unemployment Rate
Demographic
Growth
Social Class
Composition
Labour Market
Situation
DYNAMIC PATH DIAGRAM FOR
1991, 1996, 2002 AND 2006
Initial Growth
Rapid Growth
7
4
R2= .80
Demographic
Growth 91
0.20
0.15
5
Demographic
Growth 02
1.19
0.08
-0.51
7
R2= .85
R2= .83
Demographic
Growth 96
0.80
Slow-Down
8
Demographic
Growth 06
0.93
-0.16
-0.03
8
0.86
R2= .95
R2= .90
0.04
Social Class
Composition 91
0.28
Social Class
Composition 96
0.66
-0.04
Social Class
Composition 02
0.81
0.01
Labour Market
Situation 91
0.97
-0.02
0.12
Labour Market
Situation 96
R2= .94
9
9
6
0.56
Social Class
Composition 06
0.83
0.31
-0.16
0.23
R2= .89
0.30
-0.33
1.11
-0.06
0.27
Labour Market
Situation 02
R2= .92
1.02
Labour Market
Situation 06
R2= .94
There is only a small correlation between the urban and rural components of the index.
This confirms the theoretical underpinning of the model which stipulates that urban and rural disadvantage are
conceptually different and that the unemployment rate, for example, is not a useful indicator of rural deprivation.
CHANGE IN ABSOLUTE DEPRIVATION SCORES,
1991-2006
Number of EDs
1200
1000
1991
1996
800
2002
2006
600
400
200
0
-42.5 -37.5 -32.5 -27.5 -22.5 -17.5 -12.5 -7.5 -2.5
2.5
7.5
12.5
17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5
The figure shows the unprecedented growth in Ireland over the past 15 years, with
greatest changes occurring in the 1996 to 2002 period.
 1991 – 1996: increase in mean scores of 2.4
 1996 – 2002: increase in mean scores of 5.8 (8.2 cumulatively)
 2002 – 2006: increase in mean scores of 0.7 (8.9 cumulatively)
CHANGE IN CENTRED DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991-2006
Number of EDs
1200
1991
1000
1996
800
2002
600
2006
400
200
0
ext r emel y
ver y
di sadvant aged
di sadvant ageddi sadvant aged
mar gi nal l y
mar gi nal l y
bel ow aver age
above aver age
af f l uent
ver y af f l uent
ext r emel y
af f l uent
The figure shows the distribution of deprivation scores after ‘detrending’ the data; i.e.
subtracting the average national growth in affluence. The main observation is the gradual
narrowing of the distribution over time. This, however, has to be interpreted in the
context of a substantial decline in deprivation. As the measurements for each indicator
slide down the scale, during this period of rapid growth, the observations tend to cluster
more narrowly around the mean.
CHANGE IN RELATIVE DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991-2006
Number of EDs
1000
1991
800
1996
2002
600
2006
400
200
0
ext r emel y
ver y
di sadvant aged
di sadvant ageddi sadvant aged
mar gi nal l y
mar gi nal l y
bel ow aver age
above aver age
af f l uent
ver y af f l uent
ext r emel y
af f l uent
The figure shows the final distribution of Relative Deprivation Scores, after controlling
for the underlying trend and standardising its spread. The scores thus look at
deprivation at each point in time; i.e. as it might be perceived in relative terms.
OVERLAY OF PAIRED RELATIVE INDEX SCORES,
1991-2006
MAPPING DEPRIVATION
most disadvantaged
most affluent
marginally below the average
disadvantaged
very disadvantaged
extremely disadvantaged
marginally above the average
affluent
very affluent
extremely affluent
ABSOLUTE
AFFLUENCE
AND
DEPRIVATION
1991 - 2006
1991
1996
2002
2006
Absolute Index Scores, 1991-2006
Haase & Pratschke 2008
30 to 50
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
-10 to 0
-20 to -10
-30 to -20
-50 to -30
COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE DEPRIVATION SCORES,
1991-2006
 Shows how affluence has grown throughout the whole
country.
 Greatest change occurred between 1996 and 2002.
 Shows how affluence has grown in concentric rings around
the main urban centres, effectively demarcating the urban
commuter belts.
 Shows that, with the exception of Dublin Inner City, cities in
general have not improved in their affluence as much as the
rest of the country.
RELATIVE
AFFLUENCE
AND
DEPRIVATION
1991 - 2006
1991
1996
2002
2006
Relative Index Scores, 1991-2006
Haase & Pratschke 2008
very affluent
affluent
marginally above average
marginally below average
disadvantaged
very disadvantaged
extremely disadvantaged
COMPARISON OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION SCORES,
1991-2006
 Apart from Dublin Inner City, where there is evidence of
substantial gentrification, there are little differences in
Relative Deprivation Scores between 1991 and 2006,
representing random noise only.
STRENGTHS OF CFA-BASED DEPRIVATION INDICES
 true multidimensionality, based on theoretical considerations
 provides for a balanced approach between urban and rural deprivation
 no double-counting
 rational choice 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
TOWARDS AN ALL-ISLAND DEPRIVATION INDEX FOR
THE ISLAND OF IRELAND (OVERVIEW)
 Brief History of Deprivation Indices North and South
 New Census Geographies
 The Need for consistent All-Island Data
 The 2011 Census
 A feasible Methodology
DEPRIVATION INDICES NORTH AND SOUTH
 Northern Ireland

1981 – Urban Priority Areas (Department of the Environment-UK, 1983)

1991 – Relative Deprivation in NI (Robson et al., 1994)

2001 – NI Multiple Deprivation Measures (Noble, 2001)

2005 – NIMDM update (NISRA, 2005)

2010 – NIMDM update (NISRA, 2010)
 Republic of Ireland

1991 – Index of Relative Affluence and Deprivation (Haase et al., 1996)

1996 – Index of Relative Affluence and Deprivation (Pratschke & Haase, 2000)

2002 – Index of Relative Affluence and Deprivation (Haase & Pratschke, 2005)

2006 – New Measures of Deprivation (Haase & Pratschke, 2008)

2006 – Pobal-Haase Deprivation Index (Haase & Pratschke, 2010)
NEW CENSUS GEOGRAPHIES
 Northern Ireland
 Census Output Areas (OA), as of 2001
 Super Output Areas (SOA), as of 2001
 Republic of Ireland
 Atomic Small Areas (SA), as of 2006
 need to derive SOA equivalents
THE NEED FOR CONSISTENT ALL-ISLAND DATA
 to facilitate Cross-Border Initiatives
 PEACE III
 INTERREG IV
 IFI
 administratively
 CSO / NISRA co-operation
 AIRO / ICLRD
 INIsPHO
THE 2011 CENSUS
 Close match of Data for Ireland, North and South
 2011 Census provides European-wide comparable data
 The need for new measures of regional disparity at European level
METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES (OVERVIEW)
 Comparability of Indicator Variables
 Temporal Synchronicity
 Common Dimensionality of Deprivation
 Common Statistical Model
 Standardisation of Index Scores across Multiple Jurisdictions
COMPARABILITY OF INDICATOR VARIABLES
 Comparable Indicator Variables

Population Change

Age Dependency

Lone Parents Ratio

Male Unemployment Rate

Female Unemployment Rate

Average Number of Persons per Room
 Significantly Varying Indicator Variables

Proportion of Adult Population with Primary Education Only

Proportion of Adult Population with Third Level Education

Proportion of Population in Higher and Lower Professional Classes

Proportion of Population in Semi- and Unskilled Manual Classes
TEMPORAL SYNCRONICITY
 NI data relates to 2001 Census
 RoI data relates to 2006 Census
 This is not a huge problem. As the inter-temporal analysis of deprivation
across four census waves for the RoI has shown, relative deprivation does
not significantly change over time.
 The present analysis is intended to be first and foremost a ‘proof of
concept’. Its real significance lies in being applied with respect to the 2011
Census.
COMMON DIMENSIONALITY OF DEPRIVATION
d3
v3 Age Dependency Rate
d2
v2 Population Change
d5
v5 Primary Education Only
d6
v6 Third Level Education
d 11
v11 Persons per Room
d7
v7 Professional Classes
d8
v8 Semi/Unskilled Classes
d4
v4 Lone Parents
d9
v9 Male Unemployment
d 10
v10 Female Unemployment
Demographic
Decline
Social Class
Disadvantage
Labour Market
Deprivation
MAXIMUM COMMON STATISTICAL MODEL
u n s ta n d a rd is e d
V a ria b le
P a th
M odel RI
s ta n d a rd is e d
M odel NI
M odel RI
M odel NI
POPCHG
V2
F1
-0 .6 2 1
-0 .6 2 1
-0 .2 6 7
-0 .2 5 2
AGEDEP
V3
F1
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
0 .6 6 7
0 .3 7 2
LO NEPA
V4
F3
0 .8 5 1
0 .8 5 1
0 .4 9 4
0 .7 2 2
EDLO W _
V5
F1
1 .1 8 6
3 .4 6 5
0 .5 1 5
0 .5 7 1
EDLO W _
V5
F2
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
0 .6 0 2
0 .5 3 6
E D H IG H
V6
F1
-1 .7 1 3
-1 .2 9 8
-0 .5 3 2
-0 .2 8 8
E D H IG H
V6
F2
-1 .4 2 5
-0 .8 6 2
-0 .6 1 4
-0 .6 2 1
HLPRO F
V7
F2
-1 .8 7 7
-1 .5 2 6
-0 .9 2 7
-0 .8 9 8
L S K IL L
V8
F2
1 .2 8 0
1 .6 0 0
0 .9 0 8
0 .9 6 3
UNEMPM
V9
F3
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
0 .7 0 8
0 .8 5 2
UNEMPF
V10
F3
0 .8 4 4
0 .8 4 4
0 .5 3 9
0 .7 5 1
PEROOM
V11
F1
-0 .5 8 7
-0 .5 8 7
-0 .3 7 8
-0 .1 7 6
PEROOM
V11
F2
0 .7 1 1
0 .7 1 1
0 .6 3 5
0 .6 9 5
F 2 ,F 1
1 0 .5 6 4
1 0 .5 6 4
0 .2 6 5
0 .6 3 4
F 3 ,F 1
6 .3 7 5
6 .3 7 5
0 .1 5 6
0 .3 7 1
F 3 ,F 2
4 9 .3 1 6
4 9 .3 1 6
0 .8 7 2
0 .8 8 3
E 7 ,E 6
2 2 .2 8 3
2 1 .5 6 6
0 .5 5 8
0 .6 9 3
STANDARDISATION OF INDEX SCORES ACROSS
MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS
 Joint standardisation of all factor scores
 Simple additive approach to combining factors scores
 Resulting in comparable deprivation scores North and South, based on an
identical factor structure.
ALL-ISLAND
DEPRIVATION
INDEX FOR
2001 / 2006
All-Ireland Deprivation Index, 2001, 2006
Haase & Pratschke, 2011
30 to 50
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
-10 to 0
-20 to -10
-30 to -20
-60 to -30
(75)
(468)
(2291)
(7183)
(6879)
(2588)
(465)
(12)
ALL-ISLAND DEPRIVATION INDEX 2001 / 2006
ALL-ISLAND DEPRIVATION INDEX 2001 / 2006 + ROADS
HOW TO JUDGE A GOOD DEPRIVATION INDEX
 Back to the purpose of deprivation indices, i.e. their ability to
1.
facilitate the simultaneous comprehension of multiple indicators.
2.
to provide the basis for the effective targeting of the most disadvantaged
areas.
3.
to provide a means by which to compare performance between regions,
assess change over time, and facilitate monitoring and evaluation.
4.
enjoy broad support amongst all key stakeholders, including government
departments, state agencies and community representatives.
 By way of cross-referencing deprivation scores with a multitude of key
social, economic, health and other outcomes which are known to have an
SES gradient.