Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2009 General Report

3. SIMD 2009 results

Changes since SIMD 2006

3.1. The following changes in methodology have been made in the calculation of SIMD 2009 which will impact on the results:

• Income domain - inclusion of tax credits data to pick up low income in work families.
• Health domain - change in codes used in alcohol and drug use indicators.
• Education domain - new indicator of not in Education, Employment or Training to replace previous proxy.
• Access domain - new methodology for calculating travel times and change to weighting of sub-domains.
• Housing domain - no new data is available so census data is used as in previous updates.

3.2. The impact of each of these changes are covered in detail in the technical report and annexes.

3.3. The correlation between the SIMD 2009 and SIMD 2006 domains are shown in Annex C. This shows that the overall index is very strongly correlated against SIMD 2006 with a Pearson's correlation of 0.98. The correlation between the individual domains is also strong, particularly for the four domains with the highest weights. This suggests that despite the methodological changes the SIMD 2009 is still comparable with SIMD 2006.

Overall results

3.4. Analysis of the SIMD tends to focus on the 15% most deprived but other cut offs, for example the 5% most deprived or the 20% most deprived may be more appropriate for particular policies or uses of the SIMD and these cut offs are included in the publication. Analysis using the SIMD needs to consider the purpose for which the SIMD has been designed ie to identify small area concentrations of multiple deprivation and not individuals living in deprivation. Some analysis in this report is by vigintile. Vigintiles are bands of 5%, ie vigintile 1 is the 5% most deprived and combining the first three vigintiles is the 15% most deprived datazones in Scotland.

3.5. The areas identified by the SIMD 2009 as multiply deprived are similar to those identified by the SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2004. 81% of datazones in the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2009 were in the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2004. Only 8% of the datazones in the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2009 have never appeared in the 15% most deprived before.

3.6. The most deprived datazone in Scotland in the SIMD 2009 is S01003279 in the Parkhead / Barrowfield area in the East of Glasgow. Whilst this datazone contains a football stadium and it ranks highly on the crime domain as is expected in datazones with high influxes of people at particular times of the day, week or year, this domain carries a relatively low weight and it is the levels of income, employment, health and education deprivation that are driving the rank.

3.7. The most deprived area in SIMD 2006 in the Ferguslie Park area of Paisley is now ranked 2. The other datazones in the five most deprived areas are in Keppochhill and Possilpark in North Glasgow.

3.8. One datazone S01003031 in the Glenwood South area of Glasgow contained a number of tower blocks which have been demolished and will be replaced with new housing. This datazone has zero population in 2006 and 2007. As some indicators use data over a number of years, some data exists for this datazone and has been used to allocate a rank for it. This datazone was in the fifth decile in SIMD 2006 and is in the sixth decile for SIMD 2009.

Most deprived datazones by Local Authority

3.9. As the SIMD ranks cannot be averaged or aggregated to give scores for larger areas we look at the local and national share of deprived datazones. The local share is the proportion of deprived datazones in the Local Authority or other area of interest that fall in the 15% most deprived, or other cut off. The national share is the proportion of datazones in the 15% most deprived in Scotland that fall in a particular Local Authority area. For example in a Local Authority with 20 datazones, 10 of which are in the 15% most deprived, the local share of deprived datazones would be 50% ie half the datazones in the Local Authority are in the 15% most deprived, however the national share would be 1% as only 10 of the 976 datazones in the 15% most deprived. The local and national share of deprived datazones by Local Authority for a number of cut offs are shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

3.10. Whilst the highest concentrations of the 15% most deprived areas are in Glasgow, the Local Authority has seen a fall in the number and proportion of its datazones that are in the 15% most deprived on the overall SIMD (Table 3.1) from 34% to 31% of the 976 datazones in the 15% most deprived in Scotland (the national share). This represents a fall from 48% to 44% of the datazones in Glasgow appearing in the 15% most deprived, the local share, (Table 3.2).

3.11. North Lanarkshire has seen a small increase in the number of datazones in the 15% most deprived meaning it now has 9% of the most 15% deprived datazones in Scotland. This is 21% of the datazones in the Local Authority but several other local authorities have a higher proportion of their datazones in the 15% most deprived, the second highest local share behind Glasgow is Inverclyde with 38% of its datazones in the 15% most deprived in Scotland.

3.12. The five Local Authorities with the largest proportion of their datazones in the 15% most deprived are Glasgow (43.5%), Inverclyde (38.2%), Dundee (30.2%), West Dunbartonshire (26.3%) and North Ayrshire (24.0%). North Ayrshire has replaced Clackmannanshire which has seen a fall in the proportion of its datazones in the 15% most deprived since SIMD 2006.

3.13.The 5 Local Authorities with the highest proportion of the most deprived datazones nationally contain 58% of the 15% most deprived datazones in Scotland. This is a fall from 67% in SIMD 2004 showing that concentrations of deprivation are becoming more spread out across the country. 67% of deprived datazones are now contained in the seven local authorities with the highest national share of deprived datazones. These are Glasgow City (30.9%) North Lanarkshire (9.1%), City of Edinburgh (6.1%), South Lanarkshire (5.9%), Dundee City (5.5%) and Fife (5.2%) and North Ayrshire (4.4%).

3.14. As with SIMD 2006, some Local Authorities have no datazones in the 15% most deprived. Moray now has one datazone but Eilean Siar, Orkney and Shetland have still have none. This does not mean there is no deprivation in these Local Authorities, just that there are no concentrations of multiple deprivation in the 15% most deprived in Scotland. Eilean Siar has three datazones in the 30% most deprived in Scotland.

Table 3.1 National Share of deprived datazones by Local Authority

Local Authority	5% Most deprived data zones						10% Most deprived data zones						15% Most deprived data zones						20% Most deprived data zones
	SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)		SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)		SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)		SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)
	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)
Aberdeen City	2	0.6	9	2.8	5	1.5	8	1.2	18	2.8	14	2.2	18	1.8	27	2.8	28	2.9	27	2.1	36	2.8	34	2.6
Aberdeenshire	0	0.0	2	0.6	1	0.3	1	0.2	2	0.3	2	0.3	2	0.2	6	0.6	4	0.4	4	0.3	8	0.6	5	0.4
Angus	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.2	2	0.3	3	0.3	8	0.8	6	0.6	6	0.5	9	0.7	7	0.5
Argyll & Bute	0	0.0	2	0.6	2	0.6	6	0.9	4	0.6	7	1.1	9	0.9	10	1.0	10	1.0	10	0.8	11	0.8	11	0.8
Clackmannanshire	2	0.6	2	0.6	2	0.6	4	0.6	9	1.4	7	1.1	10	1.0	15	1.5	12	1.2	16	1.2	17	1.3	16	1.2
Dumfries & Galloway	1	0.3	2	0.6	3	0.9	3	0.5	6	0.9	9	1.4	9	0.9	11	1.1	11	1.1	15	1.2	16	1.2	19	1.5
Dundee City	9	2.8	13	4.0	18	5.5	34	5.2	39	6.0	40	6.1	51	5.2	53	5.4	54	5.5	75	5.8	68	5.2	70	5.4
East Ayrshire	7	2.2	8	2.5	10	3.1	13	2.0	17	2.6	20	3.1	28	2.9	28	2.9	27	2.8	40	3.1	40	3.1	46	3.5
East Dunbartonshire	0	0.0	1	0.3	1	0.3	2	0.3	2	0.3	2	0.3	4	0.4	3	0.3	4	0.4	5	0.4	6	0.5	6	0.5
East Lothian	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.1	3	0.3	3	0.2	3	0.2	5	0.4
East Renfrewshire	1	0.3	1	0.3	1	0.3	2	0.3	1	0.2	1	0.2	5	0.5	3	0.3	5	0.5	8	0.6	8	0.6	8	0.6
Edinburgh, City of	25	7.7	27	8.3	22	6.8	44	6.8	46	7.1	42	6.5	61	6.3	63	6.5	60	6.1	70	5.4	76	5.8	73	5.6
Eilean Siar	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
Falkirk	1	0.3	1	0.3	3	0.9	7	1.1	11	1.7	11	1.7	14	1.4	19	1.9	17	1.7	30	2.3	29	2.2	25	1.9
Fife	1	0.3	5	1.5	8	2.5	12	1.8	22	3.4	28	4.3	34	3.5	47	4.8	51	5.2	60	4.6	80	6.1	85	6.5
Glasgow City	226	69.5	169	52.0	158	48.6	325	49.9	269	41.3	242	37.2	374	38.3	330	33.8	302	30.9	404	31.1	371	28.5	349	26.8
Highland	3	0.9	3	0.9	4	1.2	7	1.1	8	1.2	9	1.4	9	0.9	17	1.7	16	1.6	17	1.3	24	1.8	27	2.1
Inverclyde	6	1.8	13	4.0	17	5.2	24	3.7	29	4.5	34	5.2	36	3.7	42	4.3	42	4.3	46	3.5	49	3.8	51	3.9
Midlothian	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.2	1	0.2	1	0.1	5	0.5	4	0.4	6	0.5	10	0.8	8	0.6
Moray	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.1	0	0.0	2	0.2	3	0.2
North Ayrshire	6	1.8	9	2.8	10	3.1	16	2.5	23	3.5	26	4.0	33	3.4	33	3.4	43	4.4	50	3.8	48	3.7	60	4.6
North Lanarkshire	9	2.8	17	5.2	21	6.5	44	6.8	44	6.8	49	7.5	103	10.6	84	8.6	89	9.1	152	11.7	133	10.2	131	10.1
Orkney Islands	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
Perth & Kinross	0	0.0	2	0.6	2	0.6	2	0.3	5	0.8	4	0.6	3	0.3	9	0.9	6	0.6	5	0.4	10	0.8	10	0.8
Renfrewshire	8	2.5	9	2.8	12	3.7	22	3.4	22	3.4	29	4.5	41	4.2	36	3.7	43	4.4	60	4.6	60	4.6	57	4.4
Scottish Borders	0	0.0	1	0.3	0	0.0	1	0.2	2	0.3	2	0.3	2	0.2	3	0.3	5	0.5	4	0.3	6	0.5	6	0.5
Shetland Islands	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
South Ayrshire	1	0.3	5	1.5	6	1.8	7	1.1	8	1.2	9	1.4	13	1.3	13	1.3	18	1.8	20	1.5	21	1.6	23	1.8
South Lanarkshire	8	2.5	13	4.0	9	2.8	40	6.1	37	5.7	32	4.9	66	6.8	56	5.7	58	5.9	88	6.8	80	6.1	79	6.1
Stirling	3	0.9	5	1.5	3	0.9	5	0.8	5	0.8	5	0.8	6	0.6	7	0.7	7	0.7	8	0.6	10	0.8	8	0.6
West Dunbartonshire	6	1.8	5	1.5	7	2.2	20	3.1	17	2.6	18	2.8	32	3.3	33	3.4	31	3.2	44	3.4	40	3.1	40	3.1
West Lothian	0	0.0	1	0.3	0	0.0	2	0.3	3	0.5	6	0.9	9	0.9	14	1.4	19	1.9	28	2.2	30	2.3	39	3.0
Scotland	325	100.0	325	100.0	325	100.0	651	100.0	651	100.0	651	100	976	100.0	976	100.0	976	100.0	1,301	100.0	1,301	100.0	1,301	100.0

Note: The national share is the number of data zones in the local authority area in the vigintile as a proportion of the total number of data zones in the vigintile.

Table 3.2 Local Share of deprived datazones by Local Authority

Local Authority		5% Most deprived data zones						10% Most deprived data zones						15% Most deprived data zones						20% Most deprived data zones
		SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)		SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)		SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)		SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)
	no. of data zones	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)	no. of data zones	local share (%)
Aberdeen City	267	2	0.7	9	3.4	5	1.9	8	3.0	18	6.7	14	5.2	18	6.7	27	10.1	28	10.5	27	10.1	36	13.5	34	12.7
Aberdeenshire	301	0	0.0	2	0.7	1	0.3	1	0.3	2	0.7	2	0.7	2	0.7	6	2.0	4	1.3	4	1.3	8	2.7	5	1.7
Angus	142	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.7	2	1.4	3	2.1	8	5.6	6	4.2	6	4.2	9	6.3	7	4.9
Argyll & Bute	122	0	0.0	2	1.6	2	1.6	6	4.9	4	3.3	7	5.7	9	7.4	10	8.2	10	8.2	10	8.2	11	9.0	11	9.0
Clackmannanshire	64	2	3.1	2	3.1	2	3.1	4	6.3	9	14.1	7	10.9	10	15.6	15	23.4	12	18.8	16	25.0	17	26.6	16	25.0
Dumfries & Galloway	193	1	0.5	2	1.0	3	1.6	3	1.6	6	3.1	9	4.7	9	4.7	11	5.7	11	5.7	15	7.8	16	8.3	19	9.8
Dundee City	179	9	5.0	13	7.3	18	10.1	34	19.0	39	21.8	40	22.3	51	28.5	53	29.6	54	30.2	75	41.9	68	38.0	70	39.1
East Ayrshire	154	7	4.5	8	5.2	10	6.5	13	8.4	17	11.0	20	13.0	28	18.2	28	18.2	27	17.5	40	26.0	40	26.0	46	29.9
East Dunbartonshire	127	0	0.0	1	0.8	1	0.8	2	1.6	2	1.6	2	1.6	4	3.1	3	2.4	4	3.1	5	3.9	6	4.7	6	4.7
East Lothian	120	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.8	3	2.5	3	2.5	3	2.5	5	4.2
East Renfrewshire	120	1	0.8	1	0.8	1	0.8	2	1.7	1	0.8	1	0.8	5	4.2	3	2.5	5	4.2	8	6.7	8	6.7	8	6.7
Edinburgh, City of	549	25	4.6	27	4.9	22	4.0	44	8.0	46	8.4	42	7.7	61	11.1	63	11.5	60	10.9	70	12.8	76	13.8	73	13.3
Eilean Siar	36	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
Falkirk	197	1	0.5	1	0.5	3	1.5	7	3.6	11	5.6	11	5.6	14	7.1	19	9.6	17	8.6	30	15.2	29	14.7	25	12.7
Fife	453	1	0.2	5	1.1	8	1.8	12	2.6	22	4.9	28	6.2	34	7.5	47	10.4	51	11.3	60	13.2	80	17.7	85	18.8
Glasgow City	694	226	32.6	169	24.4	158	22.8	325	46.8	269	38.8	242	34.9	374	53.9	330	47.6	302	43.5	404	58.2	371	53.5	349	50.3
Highland	292	3	1.0	3	1.0	4	1.4	7	2.4	8	2.7	9	3.1	9	3.1	17	5.8	16	5.5	17	5.8	24	8.2	27	9.2
Inverclyde	110	6	5.5	13	11.8	17	15.5	24	21.8	29	26.4	34	30.9	36	32.7	42	38.2	42	38.2	46	41.8	49	44.5	51	46.4
Midlothian	112	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.9	1	0.9	1	0.9	5	4.5	4	3.6	6	5.4	10	8.9	8	7.1
Moray	116	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.9	0	0.0	2	1.7	3	2.6
North Ayrshire	179	6	3.4	9	5.0	10	5.6	16	8.9	23	12.8	26	14.5	33	18.4	33	18.4	43	24.0	50	27.9	48	26.8	60	33.5
North Lanarkshire	418	9	2.2	17	4.1	21	5.0	44	10.5	44	10.5	49	11.7	103	24.6	84	20.1	89	21.3	152	36.4	133	31.8	131	31.3
Orkney Islands	27	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
Perth & Kinross	175	0	0.0	2	1.1	2	1.1	2	1.1	5	2.9	4	2.3	3	1.7	9	5.1	6	3.4	5	2.9	10	5.7	10	5.7
Renfrewshire	214	8	3.7	9	4.2	12	5.6	22	10.3	22	10.3	29	13.6	41	19.2	36	16.8	43	20.1	60	28.0	60	28.0	57	26.6
Scottish Borders	130	0	0.0	1	0.8	0	0.0	1	0.8	2	1.5	2	1.5	2	1.5	3	2.3	5	3.8	4	3.1	6	4.6	6	4.6
Shetland Islands	30	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
South Ayrshire	147	1	0.7	5	3.4	6	4.1	7	4.8	8	5.4	9	6.1	13	8.8	13	8.8	18	12.2	20	13.6	21	14.3	23	15.6
South Lanarkshire	398	8	2.0	13	3.3	9	2.3	40	10.1	37	9.3	32	8.0	66	16.6	56	14.1	58	14.6	88	22.1	80	20.1	79	19.8
Stirling	110	3	2.7	5	4.5	3	2.7	5	4.5	5	4.5	5	4.5	6	5.5	7	6.4	7	6.4	8	7.3	10	9.1	8	7.3
West Dunbartonshire	118	6	5.1	5	4.2	7	5.9	20	16.9	17	14.4	18	15.3	32	27.1	33	28.0	31	26.3	44	37.3	40	33.9	40	33.9
West Lothian	211	0	0.0	1	0.5	0	0.0	2	0.9	3	1.4	6	2.8	9	4.3	14	6.6	19	9.0	28	13.3	30	14.2	39	18.5
Scotland	6,505	325	5.0	325	5.0	325	5.0	651	10.0	651	10.0	651	10.0	976	15.0	976	15.0	976	15.0	1,301	20.0	1,301	20.0	1,301	20.0

Note: The local share is the number of data zones in the local authority area in the vigintile as a proportion of the total number of data zones in the local authority area.

3.15.Table 3.3 shows the proportion of income and employment deprived people in each Local Authority who live in the 15% most deprived datazones on SIMD 2009. The percentage of income deprived individuals ranges from 65% in Glasgow to zero and single figures in Local Authorities with fewer datazones in the 15% most deprived. A similar pattern is seen for employment deprivation. In Glasgow, the proportion of income and employment deprived individuals who live in the 15% most deprived datazones is very similar whereas in other areas the difference is more marked. Where the figures are low, deprivation is less concentrated in particular datazones and deprived individuals and households will be spread across the Local Authority area.

Table 3.3: Levels of income and employment deprivation in the 15% most deprived datazones by Local Authority

Local Authority	Number of income deprived people in 15% most deprived on SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)	Number of income deprived people in Local Authority (Revised 19/07/10)	Percentage of income deprived population living in 15% most deprived data zones (Revised 19/07/10)	Number of employment deprived people in 15% most deprived on SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)	Number of employment deprived people in Local Authority	Percentage of employment deprived population living in 15% most deprived data zones (Revised 19/07/10)
Aberdeen City	6,090	22,170	27%	2,845	11,915	24%
Aberdeenshire	960	18,960	5%	570	9,095	6%
Angus	1,600	14,020	11%	610	6,075	10%
Argyll & Bute	2,090	11,230	19%	935	5,085	18%
Clackmannanshire	3,130	8,150	38%	1,450	4,260	34%
Dumfries & Galloway	3,000	21,250	14%	1,240	9,315	13%
Dundee City	15,160	28,990	52%	6,710	13,940	48%
East Ayrshire	7,170	21,740	33%	3,220	10,290	31%
East Dunbartonshire	1,030	8,910	12%	465	4,700	10%
East Lothian	630	10,660	6%	275	5,020	5%
East Renfrewshire	1,070	7,920	14%	485	3,740	13%
Edinburgh, City of	18,150	55,900	32%	8,525	27,745	31%
Eilean Siar	-	3,960	-	-	1,585	0%
Falkirk	3,860	20,890	18%	1,775	10,885	16%
Fife	12,460	51,450	24%	5,830	25,825	23%
Glasgow City	96,470	149,350	65%	43,590	67,890	64%
Highland	3,840	27,250	14%	1,650	12,215	14%
Inverclyde	10,030	16,700	60%	4,910	8,520	58%
Midlothian	870	9,990	9%	390	4,890	8%
Moray	130	9,750	1%	70	4,400	2%
North Ayrshire	10,780	26,060	41%	5,065	12,135	42%
North Lanarkshire	21,230	59,230	36%	9,855	29,565	33%
Orkney Islands	-	2,040	-	-	785	0%
Perth & Kinross	1,210	14,090	9%	455	6,435	7%
Renfrewshire	10,970	27,050	41%	5,225	13,410	39%
Scottish Borders	1,250	12,700	10%	455	5,535	8%
Shetland Islands	-	1,860	-	-	850	0%
South Ayrshire	4,460	16,760	27%	2,115	7,815	27%
South Lanarkshire	14,300	46,930	30%	6,575	23,285	28%
Stirling	1,710	9,770	17%	790	4,935	16%
West Dunbartonshire	8,450	19,420	44%	3,680	9,030	41%
West Lothian	4,430	24,150	18%	1,965	11,870	17%
Scotland	266,500	779,300	34%	121,725	373,040	33%

3.16.Table 3.4 shows the percentage of people living in the 15% most deprived datazones in SIMD 2009 who are income and employment deprived. Across Scotland, 36% of those living in the 15% most deprived are income deprived. This ranges from 24% in the Moray datazones in the 15% most deprived to 39% in Glasgow and 37% in Dundee.

3.17.The concentrations of employment deprivation range from 28% in Glasgow, Inverclyde and Stirling to 21% in East Lothian, Midlothian, Moray and Scottish Borders. The last column of the table shows that this figure has fallen since SIMD 2006 for all Local Authorities except for East Lothian, which reflects the fall seen across Scotland. This shows a reduction in the concentrations of employment deprivation, though levels will have changed in recent months. Further analysis of the impact of the economic downturn on the SIMD is available on the SIMD website. The percentage of income deprived individuals has increased across Scotland due to the inclusion of tax credit data in SIMD 2009.

Table 3.4: Percentage of the population living in the most deprived datazones who are income and employment deprived

Local Authority	SIMD 2009								SIMD 2006 Percentage of population in 15% most deprived datazones who are employment deprived
	Population (2007)	Population in 15% most deprived datazones in SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)	Number income deprived in 15% most deprived datazones (Revised 19/07/10)	Percentage of population in 15% most deprived datazones who are income deprived (Revised 19/07/10)	Working Age population (2007)	Working age population in 15% most deprived datazones in SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)	Number employment deprived in 15% most deprived datazones (Revised 19/07/10)	Percentage of population in 15% most deprived datazones who are employment deprived
Aberdeen City	209,260	19,206	6,090	32%	138,793	11,975	2,845	24%	28%
Aberdeenshire	239,160	3,285	960	29%	148,042	2,155	570	26%	31%
Angus	109,870	4,530	1,600	35%	64,938	2,680	610	23%	25%
Argyll & Bute	91,350	6,127	2,090	34%	54,002	3,555	935	26%	27%
Clackmannanshire	49,900	9,215	3,130	34%	31,176	5,680	1,450	26%	28%
Dumfries & Galloway	148,300	8,447	3,000	36%	86,138	5,140	1,240	24%	26%
Dundee City	142,150	40,958	15,160	37%	88,929	24,680	6,710	27%	29%
East Ayrshire	119,570	20,153	7,170	36%	73,746	12,170	3,220	26%	29%
East Dunbartonshire	104,850	3,077	1,030	33%	63,129	1,860	465	25%	27%
East Lothian	94,440	2,158	630	29%	56,129	1,300	275	21%	19%
East Renfrewshire	89,260	3,144	1,070	34%	53,078	1,910	485	25%	28%
Edinburgh, City of	468,070	50,040	18,150	36%	318,108	32,130	8,525	27%	30%
Eilean Siar	26,300	-	-	-	15,354	-	-
Falkirk	150,720	11,847	3,860	33%	94,225	6,880	1,775	26%	28%
Fife	360,500	38,009	12,460	33%	222,954	22,820	5,830	26%	28%
Glasgow City	581,940	244,413	96,470	39%	388,537	153,930	43,590	28%	31%
Highland	217,440	11,243	3,840	34%	132,067	6,965	1,650	24%	25%
Inverclyde	81,080	28,748	10,030	35%	49,996	17,545	4,910	28%	30%
Midlothian	79,510	3,033	870	29%	48,666	1,830	390	21%	22%
Moray	86,870	550	130	24%	52,615	335	70	21%
North Ayrshire	135,760	31,390	10,780	34%	82,188	19,010	5,065	27%	30%
North Lanarkshire	324,680	65,021	21,230	33%	204,418	39,770	9,855	25%	27%
Orkney Islands	19,860	-	-	-	11,937	-	-
Perth & Kinross	142,140	3,514	1,210	34%	84,773	2,035	455	22%	25%
Renfrewshire	169,600	30,835	10,970	36%	106,034	19,505	5,225	27%	28%
Scottish Borders	111,430	3,656	1,250	34%	65,745	2,205	455	21%	24%
Shetland Islands	21,950	-	-	-	13,425	-	-
South Ayrshire	111,690	13,162	4,460	34%	66,165	8,160	2,115	26%	29%
South Lanarkshire	309,500	43,980	14,300	33%	192,773	27,125	6,575	24%	29%
Stirling	88,190	4,815	1,710	35%	54,367	2,860	790	28%	32%
West Dunbartonshire	91,090	23,171	8,450	36%	57,287	14,375	3,680	26%	27%
West Lothian	167,770	14,573	4,430	30%	106,858	8,910	1,965	22%	23%
Scotland	5,144,200	742,300	266,500	36%	3,226,592	459,495	121,725	26%	29%

Most deprived datazones by Health Board and Community Health Partnership

3.18.The table in Annex D shows the local and national share of the 15% most deprived datazones by Health Board and Community Health Partnership. The Health Boards with the largest proportion of their datazones in the 15% most deprived are Greater Glasgow & Clyde (30.4%), Ayrshire & Arran (18.3%), Lanarkshire (17.4%), Tayside (13.3%) and Fife (11.3%).

3.19.The Health Boards with the largest proportions of the 15% most deprived datazones in Scotland are Greater Glasgow & Clyde (45.9%), Lanarkshire (12.9%), Ayrshire & Arran (9.0%), Lothian (8.8%) and Tayside (6.8%). Between them these 5 Health Boards with the largest proportions of the most deprived datazones nationally contain 83% of the 15% most deprived datazones in Scotland, with two thirds contained in the first three.

3.20.The Community Health Partnership with the highest concentrations of multiple deprivation are the North Glasgow and East Glasgow Community Health Partnerships, both with almost 60% of datazones in the area in the 15% most deprived, though both have seen a fall since SIMD 2006.

Most deprived datazones by Urban Rural Classification

3.21.Of the datazones in the 15% most deprived, around 92% are in Urban Areas and just under 2% are in Rural Areas, (1.3% are in Accessible Rural areas and 0.6% are in Remote Rural Areas). This is because populations in rural areas tend to be more mixed than in urban areas so the concentrations of population with similar characteristics are less likely to occur. These figures are shown in more detail in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Datazones in the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2009 by Urban Rural Classification

Urban Rural Classification	5% Most deprived data zones						10% Most deprived data zones
	SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)		SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)
	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)
Large Urban Areas	285	87.7	251	77.2	241	74.2	498	76.5	459	70.5	434	66.7
Other Urban Areas	35	10.8	66	20.3	75	23.1	123	18.9	164	25.2	180	27.6
Accessible Small Towns	1	0.3	5	1.5	4	1.2	8	1.2	11	1.7	15	2.3
Remote Small Towns	0	0.0	1	0.3	2	0.6	9	1.4	10	1.5	13	2.0
Accessible Rural	4	1.2	0	0.0	1	0.3	12	1.8	4	0.6	5	0.8
Remote Rural	0	0.0	2	0.6	2	0.6	1	0.2	3	0.5	4	0.6
Scotland	325	100.0	325	100.0	325	100.0	651	100.0	651	100.0	651	100.0

Urban Rural Classification	15% Most deprived data zones						20% Most deprived data zones
	SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)		SIMD 2004		SIMD 2006		SIMD 2009 V2 (Revised 19/07/10)
	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)	no. of data zones	national share (%)
Large Urban Areas	674	69.1	626	64.1	608	62.3	807	62.0	770	59.2	745	57.3
Other Urban Areas	228	23.4	277	28.4	291	29.8	340	26.1	381	29.3	403	31.0
Accessible Small Towns	34	3.5	36	3.7	37	3.8	77	5.9	78	6.0	84	6.5
Remote Small Towns	15	1.5	19	1.9	21	2.2	22	1.7	29	2.2	28	2.2
Accessible Rural	23	2.4	12	1.2	13	1.3	48	3.7	30	2.3	24	1.8
Remote Rural	2	0.2	6	0.6	6	0.6	7	0.5	13	1.0	17	1.3
Scotland	976	100.0	976	100.0	976	100.0	1,301	100.0	1,301	100.0	1301	100.0

3.22. Whilst there is a low proportion of datazones in the 15% most deprived on the overall SIMD in rural areas, there is still deprivation in these datazones. It is possible to look at the numbers of people who are income and employment deprived in the 15% most deprived on the overall SIMD by the urban rural classification.

3.23. Table 3.6 shows employment deprivation by 15% most deprived across the urban rural classification. The deprived datazones with the highest percentage of employment deprived individuals are in Large Urban areas and Remote rural areas, though each category of the urban rural classification 2008 has around a quarter of the population in the 15% most deprived employment deprived. Concentrations are lowest in small towns and accessible rural areas. The percentage of the Scotland population who are employment deprived does vary by urban rural classification, ranging from 13% in Large Urban areas to 7% in accessible rural areas.

3.24. As there are fewer concentrations of multiple deprivation in rural areas, the proportion of employment deprived individuals who live in the 15% most deprived areas is highest in large urban areas with almost half of employment deprived individuals living in the 15% most deprived areas. This proportion falls to 5% in rural areas, meaning that 95% of individuals who are employment deprived live in datazones out with the 15% most deprived.

Table 3.6: Number and percentage of people employment deprived by Urban Rural Classification and 15% most deprived on SIMD 2009

2008 Urban Rural Classification	SIMD 2009 V2 15% most deprived (Revised 19/07/10)			Scotland			% of employment deprived population in 15% most deprived (Revised 19/07/10)
	No. employment deprived	Working Age Population (2007)	% of population employment deprived	No. employment deprived	Working Age Population (2007)	% of population employment deprived
Large Urban Areas	80,680	297,495	27%	170,540	1,302,996	13%	47%
Other Urban Areas	33,260	129,320	26%	118,080	964,121	12%	28%
Accessible Small Towns	3,945	16,485	24%	29,340	280,443	10%	13%
Remote Small Towns	1,820	7,695	24%	11,690	108,417	11%	16%
Accessible Rural	1,305	5,760	23%	27,915	373,681	7%	5%
Remote Rural	725	2,730	27%	15,470	196,934	8%	5%
Scotland Total	121,735	459,490	26%	373,040	3,226,592	12%	33%

3.25. Similar patterns as with employment deprivation are seen with income deprived individuals as shown in Table 3.7. The only difference being higher percentages, with around 36% of the population income deprived in the 15% most deprived areas. 18% of the population in large urban areas are income deprived compared with 9% in accessible rural areas. As with employment deprivation, the proportion of income deprived people living within the 15% most deprived in each category of the urban rural classification is highest in large urban areas at 50% and lowest in rural areas at 5%.

Table 3.7: Percentage of income deprived people in the 15% Most deprived datazones on SIMD 2009 by Urban Rural Classification.

2008 Urban Rural Classification	SIMD 2009 V2 15% most deprived (Revised 19/07/10)			Scotland			% of income deprived population in 15% most deprived (Revised 19/07/10)
	No. income deprived (Revised 19/07/10)	Population (2007)	% of population income deprived (Revised 19/07/10)	No. income deprived (Revised 19/07/10)	Population (2007)	% of population income deprived (Revised 19/07/10)
Large Urban Areas	176,910	468,077	37%	357,300	1,998,881	18%	50%
Other Urban Areas	72,210	216,701	34%	240,380	1,555,063	15%	30%
Accessible Small Towns	8,530	30,382	31%	60,830	461,318	13%	14%
Remote Small Towns	4,390	13,814	33%	26,820	186,582	14%	16%
Accessible Rural	2,910	9,675	30%	57,770	608,170	9%	5%
Remote Rural	1,540	4,569	34%	36,140	334,186	11%	4%
Scotland Total	266,500	743,218	36%	779,250	5,144,200	15%	34%

Change over time

3.26. Whilst there have been changes to the SIMD methodology and indicators used over the three SIMDs it is still possible to look at change over time though care needs to be taken because of the changes.

How to do change over time analysis

3.27. The version or versions of the index to use will depend on the purpose of the analysis being carried out. Five possible scenarios looked at are:

Analysis at a point in time

The most deprived areas at the current point in time. Use SIMD 2009 as this highlights the most deprived areas based on the data available at the time of calculation (see technical note for details of data sources)

The most deprived areas in the past eg using survey data from 2005. Use the SIMD that uses data closest to the time period of the data source you are using, eg SIMD 2006 used 2004-05 data and 2004 population estimates.

Analysis over time

What has happened to the most deprived areas since 2004. Use the most deprived datazones highlighted in SIMD 2004 to see if there has been improvement in these areas, possibly in comparison with the 85% least deprived.

What has happened in the most deprived areas in the past. Use the datazones highlighted in the most recent SIMD and look back through time to see whether these areas have worsened, possibly in comparison with the 85% least deprived.

What has happened to the most deprived areas over time. In this case analysis needs to focus on the most deprived areas as a group within Scotland as defined by each update of the index, eg how do the most deprived areas in SIMD 2009 differ from those highlighted in SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2006.

3.28. When looking at change over time, changes in population need to be considered as datazone populations will increase and decrease over time due to new build housing and demolition. Population characteristics may also change eg an increase or decrease in school age children.

3.29. Table 3.8 below shows the change in populations since SIMD 2006. Just over two thirds of datazones have seen very little change in population. Only 4% of datazones have seen a population increase or decrease of greater than 20%. Three quarters of those seeing a large change in population have remained in the 85% least deprived compared to SIMD 2009. Annex E contains a table showing population by SIMD vigintile for SIMD 2004, SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009. Vigintiles are five percent bands ie vigintile 1 is the 5% most deprived datazones.

Table 3.8: Datazone movement between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009 compared to population changes

3.30. More details regarding use of the index for change over time analysis can be found on the SIMD website, link in Annex A.

Change over time analysis results

Datazones remaining in the 15% most deprived

3.31. Chart 3.1 shows that of the datazones in the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2004, 81% have remained in the 15% most deprived on all three updates to the index. In seven Local Authorities, all the datazones in the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2004 have remained in the 15% most deprived on both SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009. So the majority of the deprived areas have remained the same over the updates. East Renfrewshire is the Local Authority with the smallest proportion of its datazones remaining in the 15% most deprived though it only had 5 in the 15% most deprived in SIMD 2004

Chart 3.1: Movement of datazones appearing in the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2004 by Local Authority*

*The number of datazones in the 15% most deprived for each Local Authority is shown in brackets after the name.

Datazone movement between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009

3.32.Table 3.9 shows the movement of datazones by vigintile between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009. 105 datazones moved out of the 15% most deprived with 105 moving in. Of the datazones moving out, 78% moved to the 15-20% band and another 16% moved to the 20-25% band, so they haven't moved a long way up the distribution. Of the datazones moving in, 92% moved in from the 15-20% band so were still relatively deprived in SIMD 2006. The datazone moving from vigintile 4 to vigintile 13 is a result of demolition and new build.

Table 3.9 Movement of datazones between vigintiles, SIMD 2006 to SIMD 2009

Vigintile 1 = the most deprived 5% of datazones.

Datazones moving into the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2009

3.33.Table 3.10 shows the datazones moving into the 15% most deprived datazones in SIMD 2009 and their vigintile in SIMD 2006. 92% of the datazones that moved into the 15% most deprived moved from the 15-20% band. Only one datazone, in West Lothian, moved in from vigintile 6 whilst only North Ayrshire and West Lothian had more than one datazone moving in from the fifth vigintile. North Lanarkshire and Fife also saw large numbers of datazones moving into the 15% most deprived.

3.34.Of the datazones moving into the 15% most deprived in North Ayrshire, all 11 saw a worsening in rank on both the employment and education domains. Eight of the 11 datazones got worse on the income domain, 8 got worse on Health and 8 got worse on Access. Seven of the eleven saw a reduction in rank on at least five of the six domains that have changed between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009. 10 of the 11 saw an identifiable increase (greater than disclosure control) in the proportion of people income deprived which will be in part caused by the inclusion of tax credit data in the income domain. Only four datazones saw an increase in the percentage employment deprived, though of the rest the rounded percentage stayed the same or the reduction in the percentage was very small, whereas Scotland overall saw a reduction in the number and percentage employment deprived meaning the small improvements in these datazones is a relative worsening. This means that the areas are experiencing multiple deprivation and are experiencing deprivation at relatively higher levels than before.

3.35.In North Lanarkshire, 10 of the 11 saw a reduction in rank on the employment domain and 8 on the income domain. Nine of the 11 datazones got worse on at least four of the six domains that have changed since SIMD 2006. Five datazones saw an increase in the levels of employment deprivation. As levels of employment deprivation across Scotland improved between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009, these areas will have got relatively worse.

3.36.In Fife, all the datazones moving in were in vigintile 4 or 5 on SIMD 2004, so over the 3 SIMDs have remained at the most deprived end. Eight of the 10 datazones moving in saw a worsening on the income domain, seven saw a worsening in at least three of the income, employment, health and education domains, again showing higher levels of deprivation than in the previous update to the SIMD.

Table 3.10: Datazones moving out of the most deprived 15% between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009 by SIMD 2006 Vigintile.

Local Authority	SIMD 2006 Vigintile			Total data zones moving into the 15% most deprived
	4	5	6
Aberdeen City	3			3
Clackmannanshire	1			1
Dumfries & Galloway	1			1
Dundee City	6			6
East Ayrshire	2			2
East Dunbartonshire	1			1
East Lothian	2			2
East Renfrewshire	2			2
Edinburgh, City of	4			4
Falkirk	1			1
Fife	10			10
Glasgow City	7	1		8
Highland	3			3
Inverclyde	3			3
Midlothian	1			1
Moray	1			1
North Ayrshire	7	4		11
North Lanarkshire	11			11
Renfrewshire	8			8
Scottish Borders	2			2
South Ayrshire	6			6
South Lanarkshire	8			8
Stirling	1			1
West Lothian	6	2	1	9
Grand Total	97	7	1	105

Datazones moving out of the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2009

3.37.Table 3.11 shows the datazones moving out of the 15% most deprived by Local Authority. 85% moved from the 10-15% band and another 14% moved from the 5-10% band. The datazone in Glasgow that moved from the most deprived 5% is due to demolition and new build in recent years.

3.38.Of the 36 datazones in Glasgow moving out of the 15% most deprived, all but five have seen an improvement in rank on the income domain, all but two have seen an improvement in rank on the employment domain. 31 of the datazones have seen an improvement in health rank and 26 have seen an improvement in the education domain.

3.39.Of the Glasgow datazones moving out of the 15% most deprived around 3 in 5 have seen a reduction in income deprivation since SIMD 2006, despite the addition of tax credit data to include low income in work families. All except one of the 36 datazones has seen a decrease in the proportion of people employment deprived. The one datazone that hasn't seen a decrease still has the same proportion as in SIMD 2006. This shows improvement relative to the rest of Scotland.

Table 3.11: Datazones moving out of the most deprived 15% between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009 by SIMD 2006 Vigintile.

	SIMD 2006 Vigintile			Total data zones moving out of 15% most deprived
Local Authority	1	2	3
Aberdeen City			2	2
Aberdeenshire			2	2
Angus			2	2
Clackmannanshire			4	4
Dumfries & Galloway			1	1
Dundee City		1	4	5
East Ayrshire			3	3
Edinburgh, City of		2	5	7
Falkirk			3	3
Fife		1	5	6
Glasgow City	1	9	26	36
Highland			4	4
Inverclyde			3	3
Midlothian			2	2
North Ayrshire			1	1
North Lanarkshire		2	4	6
Perth & Kinross			3	3
Renfrewshire			1	1
South Ayrshire			1	1
South Lanarkshire			6	6
Stirling			1	1
West Dunbartonshire			2	2
West Lothian			4	4
Scotland	1	15	89	105

Datazones moving out of the 15% most deprived in SIMD 2006

3.40.Of the datazones that moved out of the 15% most deprived between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2006, 95 (79%) have remained out of the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2009, showing maintained improvement.

Datazones moving into the 15% Most deprived in SIMD 2006

3.41.Of the 120 datazones that moved into the 15% between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2006, 66% have remained in the 15% most deprived in SIMD 2009.

Concentrations of deprivation in the 15% most deprived datazones

3.42.A measure of levels of concentrations of deprivation is the number of domains where a datazone falls in the 15% most deprived ie how many aspects of deprivation is the population of a datazone experiencing. Chart 3.2 shows, for the datazones in the 15% most deprived in SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009, how many of the individual domains the datazone was in the 15% most deprived for. All datazones in the 15% most deprived were in the 15% most deprived on at least one domain. Over 90% of the datazones were in the 15% most deprived on three or more domains on both SIMD 2006 and 2009. The proportion of the most deprived datazones in the 15% most deprived on 6 or more domains has fallen slightly between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009, showing that concentrations of multiple deprivation have reduced slightly.

Chart 3.2: Datazones in the 15% most deprived in the overall SIMD which are also in the 15% most deprived in individual domains

Have the areas moving out of the 15% most deprived got better?

3.43.Table 3.12 shows that of the datazones that were in the 15% most deprived on SIMD 2004, 817 (84%) are still in the most deprived on SIMD 2009. Of the datazones in the most deprived 5% on SIMD 2004, 95% are still in the 15% in SIMD 2009 compared to only two thirds of those in the 10-15%.

3.44.Of the datazones in the 15% most deprived in SIMD 2009, almost all the datazones in the 5% most deprived have remained in the 15% most deprived since SIMD 2004. 41% of the datazones in the 10-15% most deprived have moved into the 15% most deprived since SIMD 2004. This suggests that the areas with the highest concentrations of deprivation are staying in the 15% most deprived but there is movement in and out of the 15% from areas near the cut off. This is backed up by Table 3.9 which shows that the majority of the 5% most deprived on SIMD 2006 remained in the 5% most deprived on SIMD 2009. In Glasgow City over a third of the 5% most deprived datazones in 2004 moved out of that category but only 7% moved out of the 15% most deprived.

Table 3.12: Datazone movement for datazones in the 15% most deprived in SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2009

SIMD 2004	In most deprived in SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2009 V2		Moved out of most deprived between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2009 V2
	Number	%	Number	%
0-5% Most Deprived	308	94.8%	17	5.2%
5-10% Most Deprived	293	89.9%	33	10.1%
10-15% Most Deprived	216	66.5%	109	33.5%
Total (0-15% Most Deprived)	817	83.7%	159	16.3%

SIMD 2009	In most deprived in SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2009 V2		Moved into most deprived between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2009 V2
	Number	%	Number	%
0-5% Most Deprived	324	99.7%	1	0.3%
5-10% Most Deprived	300	92.0%	26	8.0%
10-15% Most Deprived	193	59.4%	132	40.6%
Total (0-15% Most Deprived)	817	83.7%	159	16.3%

3.45. All the domains within the SIMD have changed between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2009 except for the employment domain. This domain is a percentage of the population claiming employment related benefits so can be used to look at levels of deprivation in the most deprived areas. Table 3.13 groups the datazones in Scotland into four groups according to the movement between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2009.

3.46.This table shows that between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2009, those datazones that moved into the 15% most deprived saw levels of employment deprivation remaining stable. All other areas saw a reduction which means the areas moving in got relatively worse. The areas that stayed in the 15% most deprived saw a reduction in levels of employment deprivation over the three updates to the index but levels are still much higher than the rest of Scotland. Unsurprisingly the largest improvement was seen in the areas that moved out of the 15% most deprived.

Table 3.13: Levels of employment deprivation in datazones moving into and out of the 15% most deprived.

Data zone movement between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2009 V2	Level of employment deprivation
	SIMD 2004	SIMD 2006	SIMD 2009 V2
Data zones moving into 15% most deprived	22%	23%	22%
Data zones moving out of 15% most deprived	27%	22%	17%
Data zones staying in the 15% most deprived	32%	30%	27%
Data zones staying in the 85% least deprived	11%	10%	9%

3.47. It is also possible to look at indicators for individual datazones to see whether an area has improved. The indicators used to calculate the SIMD are available on the SIMD and Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics web sites and an example of this is included as a case study at the end of the report.