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