Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke
THE HP DEPRIVATION INDICES
Nevin Economic Research Institute – 4th March 2015
THE 2011 POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX
The purpose of the presentation is
• to provide an overview of the conceptual components which underlie the HP
Deprivation Indices
• to provide a practical demonstration of • The 2011 Pobal HP Deprivation Index for Small Areas • The Longitudinal HP Deprivation Index (ED) • The All-Island HP Deprivation Index (SA)
• to draw out the importance when modelling the social gradient of health and
other socio-economic outcomes and developing resource allocation models
Overview and
Conceptual Underpinnings
91 96 02 06 11
HP DEPRIVATION INDICES 1996-2014
91 96 02 06 11
91 96 02 06 11
91 96 02 06 11
91 96 02 06 11
91 96 02 06
06
06
91 96 02 06 06
91 96 02 06 06
91 96 02 06 06
91 96 02 06 06
86 91 96
86 91 96
86 91 96
86 91 96
86 91 96
96
96
96
96
96
91
91
91
91
91
SA
ED
NUTS 4
NUTS 3
NUTS 2
NUTS 1
Haase et al., 1996 Haase, 1999
Pratschke & Haase, 2004 Haase & Pratschke, 2005 Haase & Pratschke, 2008
Haase & Pratschke, 2010 Haase & Pratschke, 2012
91 96 02
91 96 02
91 96 02
91 96 02
91 96 02
Pratschke & Haase, 2001
01NI
01NI
01NI
01NI
01NI
01NI
Haase & Pratschke, 2011 Level at which model is estimated
Level to which data is aggregated Haase, Pratschke & Gleeson, 2014
06 11
06 11
06 11
06 11
06 11
06 11
11 RI
11 NI
11 RI
11 NI
11 RI
11 NI
11 RI
11 NI
11 RI
11 NI
11 RI
11 NI
Pratschke & Haase, 2014
All-Island HP Deprivation Index
Pobal HP Deprivation Index
Longitudinal HP Deprivation Index
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)
A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF POVERTY
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
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
F1
F2
Ordinary Factor Analysis (EFA) reduces variables to a smaller number of underlying Dimensions or Factors
TRADITIONAL APPROACH: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA)
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
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
L1
L2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis also reduces observations to the underlying Factors, however
δ 1
δ 2
δ 3
δ 4
δ 5
δ 6
NEW APPROACH: CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA)
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 UNDERLYING DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE
Age Dependency Rate δ 1
Population Change δ 2
Primary Education only δ 3
Third Level Education δ 4
Professional Classes
δ 5 Persons per Room
δ 6
Lone Parents
δ 7 Semi- and Unskilled Classes
δ 8
Male Unemployment Rate δ 9
Female Unemployment Rate δ 10
Demographic Growth
Social Class Composition
Labour Market Situation
THE BASIC MODEL OF THE SA-LEVEL POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX
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 and 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
can be developed for multiple jurisdictions
COMMON FEATURES OF THE HP DEPRIVATION INDICES
most disadvantaged most affluent
marginally below the average marginally above the average
disadvantaged affluent
very disadvantaged very affluent
extremely disadvantaged extremely affluent
MAPPING DEPRIVATION
The Pobal HP Deprivation Index
Small Area (SA) Level Analysis, 2006 - 2011
RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2011
Relative Index Score 2011Haase & 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)
The Longitudinal HP Deprivation Index
Electoral Division (ED) Level Analysis, 1991-2011
ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 1991
HP Deprivation Index ED 1991 absoluteHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (53)20 to 30 (79)10 to 20 (252)0 to 10 (1184)
-10 to 0 (1431)-20 to -10 (360)-30 to -20 (49)
ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 1996
HP Deprivation Index ED 1996 absoluteHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (52)20 to 30 (133)10 to 20 (562)0 to 10 (1625)
-10 to 0 (875)-20 to -10 (151)-30 to -20 (10)
ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2002
HP Deprivation Index ED 2002 absoluteHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (77)20 to 30 (314)10 to 20 (1021)0 to 10 (1440)
-10 to 0 (436)-20 to -10 (103)-30 to -20 (16)-50 to -30 (1)
ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2006
HP Deprivation Index ED 2006 absoluteHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (55)20 to 30 (314)10 to 20 (1201)0 to 10 (1385)
-10 to 0 (341)-20 to -10 (93)-30 to -20 (18)-50 to -30 (1)
ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2011
HP Deprivation Index ED2011 absoluteHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (14)20 to 30 (82)10 to 20 (296)0 to 10 (1026)
-10 to 0 (1414)-20 to -10 (460)-30 to -20 (98)-50 to -30 (18)
ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 1991
HP Deprivation Index ED 1991 relativeHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (53)20 to 30 (79)10 to 20 (252)0 to 10 (1184)
-10 to 0 (1431)-20 to -10 (360)-30 to -20 (49)
ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 1996
HP Deprivation Index ED 1996 relativeHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (37)20 to 30 (100)10 to 20 (325)0 to 10 (1112)
-10 to 0 (1390)-20 to -10 (375)-30 to -20 (66)-50 to -30 (3)
ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2002
HP Deprivation Index ED 2002 relativeHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (11)20 to 30 (86)10 to 20 (406)0 to 10 (1125)
-10 to 0 (1333)-20 to -10 (346)-30 to -20 (91)-50 to -30 (10)
ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2006
HP Deprivation Index ED 2006 relativeHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (2)20 to 30 (76)10 to 20 (420)0 to 10 (1204)
-10 to 0 (1267)-20 to -10 (317)-30 to -20 (98)-50 to -30 (24)
ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2011
HP Deprivation Index ED 2011 relativeHaase & Pratschke 2013
30 to 75 (19)20 to 30 (91)10 to 20 (368)0 to 10 (1161)
-10 to 0 (1331)-20 to -10 (352)-30 to -20 (76)-50 to -30 (10)
HP DEPRIVATION SCORES IN COMPARISON, 1991-2011
HP Deprivation Index N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation HP 1991 ED absolute 3,409 -28.0 73.3 0.0 10.0
HP 1996 ED absolute 3,409 -27.4 45.7 4.3 9.2
HP 2002 ED absolute 3,409 -30.6 42.1 8.4 9.9
HP 2006 ED absolute 3,409 -35.0 39.9 9.2 9.3
HP 2011 ED absolute 3,409 -43.7 41.6 -1.4 10.1
HP 1991 ED relative 3,409 -28.0 73.3 0.0 10.0
HP 1996 ED relative 3,409 -34.4 45.1 0.0 10.0
HP 2002 ED relative 3,409 -39.4 34.0 0.0 10.0
HP 2006 ED relative 3,409 -47.4 32.9 0.0 10.0
HP 2011 ED relative 3,409 -41.9 42.7 0.0 10.0
The All-Island HP Deprivation Index
Small Area (SA) Level Analysis, 2011
Comparability of Spatial Units (SA)
Comparability of Indicator Variables
Temporal Synchronicity (2011 Census)
Common Dimensionality of Deprivation
Common Statistical Model
Standardisation of Index Scores across Multiple Jurisdictions
METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES (OVERVIEW)
Demographic Decline
Social Class Disadvantage
Labour Market Deprivation
v3 Age Dependency Rate
δ
3
v2 Population Change δ
2
v5 Primary Education Only δ 5
v6 Third Level Education δ 6
v11 Persons per Room δ 11
v7 Professional Classes δ
7
v8 Semi/Unskilled Classes δ 8
v4 Lone Parents δ
4
v9 Male Unemployment
δ
9
v10 Female Unemployment
δ
10
COMMON DIMENSIONALITY OF DEPRIVATION
2011 ALL-ISLAND HP DEPRIVATION INDEX SCORE
All-Island HP Deprivation ScoreHaase & Pratschke 2014
30 to 50 (38)20 to 30 (507)10 to 20 (3060)0 to 10 (7946)
-10 to 0 (7807)-20 to -10 (3117)-30 to -20 (535)-60 to -30 (15)
NI: 3.0 RoI: - 0.7
THREE MAJOR OBSERVATIONS
By 2011 Northern Ireland had become the more affluent of the two jurisdictions. This is of considerable interest, as the relative positions of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are reversed compared with our previous analysis.
The driving factor in this striking development has been the ability of Northern Ireland to maintain a comparatively high level of employment despite the unfavourable economic climate since roughly the mid-point of the inter-census period.
The third observation that emerges is that rural areas in the Republic of Ireland appear to be much more negatively affected by opportunity deprivation than equivalent areas in Northern Ireland.
Applications of the
Pobal HP Deprivation Index
Local development Local Community Development Programme (LCDP), RAPID
Childcare Initiatives, Family Resource Centres, County Development Plans
Health Mortality Studies, Epidemiological Studies, Primary Health Care, Health
Inequality
Education Educational Disadvantage, Higher Education Access Route
Environment National Transport Planning, National Spatial Strategy
Statistical Methods and Research Design Optimising the Sampling Strategy for CSO Household Surveys
Social Equality / Inequality (EU-SILC, QNHS, GUI, TILDA, SLAN, NDS)
APPLICATIONS OF THE POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX
Low Moderate High
Affluent Deprived
SD -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
0.1% 2.1% 13.6% 34.1% 34.1% 13.6% 2.1% 0.1%
Health Risks
HEALTH RISKS AND RELATIVE AFFLUENCE / DEPRIVATION
MODELLING POPULATION SHARES ACCORDING TO RELATIVE DEPRIVATION T – TOTAL POPULATION L – LOW (48.3%) M – MEDIUM (22.4%) H – HIGH ( 7.4%)
T : >5 STD (Total
Population)
L: 0 STD 48.3% Population
M: -1 STD 22.4%
H: -2 STD 7.4%
THE HSE RESOURCE ANALYSER
2011 Census of Population
2011 Pobal HP Deprivation Index
Reference Database for 18,488 Small
Areas
Total Population
100%
Low Deprivation
48.2%
Medium Deprivation
22.4%
High Deprivation
7.4%
60% 15% 5% 20%
Data aggregation to spatial area of interest (Region, ISA, PCT etc.)
Administrative data on current
allocations
Combined Target
Allocation
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
DML DNE SOUTH WEST
Population Low Deprivation Medium Deprivation High Deprivation Current Dis tribution Target Dis tribution
Data Sources
Reference Models
Model Choices
For more detailed Information on all of the
HP Deprivation Indices see
www.trutzhaase.eu