Targeting Social Exclusion The New Opportunities Fund asked CASE, the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the LSE, to write an up-to-date summary of thinking on the nature of social exclusion and deprivation, how these are measured, and the places where problems are concentrated.the Fund is interested in how to target its awards to benefit the most deprived individuals and communities, and to maximise their impact on social inclusion.we hope that the report can help create a shared frame of reference for ourselves, our partners, applicants and award holders. This Research Summary is an interpretation of the report by the Fund with examples from our own work. It has four sections. 1 Thinking about social exclusion and disadvantage. 2 Measuring social exclusion and deprivation. 3 What can area targeting achieve? 4 Where are deprived areas, and what do they look like? Simon McComb Targeting Social Exclusion (June 2001) Rebecca Tunstall, Joseph Murray, Ruth Lupton and Anne Power, CASE. This research summary by Michael Clegg.
SECTION 1 Thinking about social exclusion and disadvantage 2 The Social Exclusion Unit describes exclusion as: a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown. This approach points to features of exclusion for instance its many causes and the importance of outcomes rather than giving a precise definition.yet even without such a definition many people, from policy makers to citizens, have found that the cluster of ideas around social exclusion capture significant features of society. Social exclusion is related to deprivation and poverty, but can be distinguished from them While deprivation may be persistent and may affect people along many dimensions low income, poor housing and poor health, for example social exclusion puts these elements in the foreground. It is a process with consequences stretching into the future, even across generations. Further, this process is maintained by existing attitudes, from both individuals and institutions. For example, there is considerable anecdotal evidence of postcode discrimination in the job market. For members of minority communities discrimination may be the agent for exclusion. Poverty is central to most people s idea of exclusion, but it does not act alone. The extent to which low income results in exclusion will depend on its persistence, and on the extent to which opportunities and services are made available to all, regardless of their means. Isolation from wider society is a key to exclusion When community workers and their clients are asked about exclusion, replies focus on personal experiences, particularly on how things like poor transport and facilities can limit access to everyday activities and interaction. Writers and researchers, too, have emphasised this theme: exploring the level of resources needed to take part in common activities and to exercise citizenship, and the way institutions such as schools and clubs, and the shared experiences that they create, can promote inclusion and wellbeing. Individuals, groups and areas can be excluded While theories of social exclusion are mainly about individuals and their interactions with wider society, policy has been directed at areas, particularly neighbourhoods with concentrated needs. Attempts to identify and measure exclusion and deprivation have also focused on areas, reflecting the availability of data. Whether places themselves have an effect on those who live in them remains an open question. Certainly many excluded and deprived people live outside deprived areas. However, there is plenty of evidence that poor access to public services, such as schools and hospitals, as well as shops, banking and other private agencies, further limits the opportunities for residents of the poorest places. Measures of persistent and repeated poverty have identified up to 10 per cent of the population as excluded. Other estimates, not drawing on specific empirical research, range from 10 per cent to 40 per cent. New Opportunities Fund staff analysed application forms from our first three initiatives. We hoped to understand how our applicants use and understand terms such as social exclusion. Key findings were: Exclusion is associated with social and psychological issues (such as attitude and motivation) while disadvantage and deprivation are associated more with economic conditions. Overall applicants are quite uncertain in using exclusion. Healthy living centre applicants are more confident, probably because of extensive research and discussion of exclusion within the public health field. Exclusion is mostly seen as a way to describe social groups (such as young people or ethnic minorities,) not places. Applicants find it difficult to put together specific evidence about exclusion and local conditions in an area. On the application forms, questions about need were relatively successful in getting clear responses with supporting evidence.
SECTION 2 Measuring social exclusion and deprivation A variety of different indexes of poverty and deprivation have been developed in order to measure their extent, track changes over time, or to compare areas the last of these being particularly important in targeting funding initiatives. Well known examples include the Jarman index of local health needs and the Townsend index of material deprivation. Each index combines information on different indicators (such as levels of saving, empty homes, literacy, crime or illness) to give a broader picture. The choice of indicators will reflect the purpose of the index and the conception of deprivation or exclusion. Which index is looked at will have a significant impact on which areas are seen as disadvantaged. Figure 1 illustrates how different indexes treat the North East of England. Figure 1: Deprived wards in the North East as a % of deprived wards in England across four indexes Jarman Index Townsend Index 14% Breadline Britain Index 21% IMD 2000 15% Few measures have considered social exclusion directly. David Gordon and colleagues have developed ideas from the Breadline Britain index, and test access to those goods and services seen as necessities by a majority of the population. Mohibur Rahman and his co-authors include income inequalities in their set of measures. However, none of these attempts to measure exclusion make comparisons between areas in the way necessary for targeting they are aimed at tracking the extent of exclusion and changes over time. On the other hand, recent measures of deprivation in areas have gone some way to incorporate ideas of social exclusion using a wider range of indicators, and including some that capture known impacts of persistent low income. For example, the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 (IMD 2000) includes a measure of poor educational results. The New Opportunities Fund has begun to use the IMD 2000 for targeting initiatives in England. It has a number of advantages: it is widely known and used, particularly by local and central government (where it is a key tool for the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit) it up to date and will be regularly updated it is available at district and ward levels, the later allowing more precise targeting (in England there are 8,414 wards, with populations from under 1,000 to 32,000, and 354 local authority districts) it can be separated into domains covering economic activity, health, etc it is based on a well thought out concept of multiple deprivation which overlaps to a large extent with the concept of social exclusion In comparison to other indices, the IMD 2000 finds greater deprivation in the West Midlands, East Midlands, Eastern and South West regions of England, as well as rural areas. Similar indices are available in Wales (the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation) and Northern Ireland (the Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure.) These have the same advantages though areas cannot be compared between countries. 3
SECTION 3 What can area targeting achieve? Areas are mixed, and targeting funding to poorer locations will inevitably benefit some residents who are not deprived (that is there will be a degree of inefficiency) while leaving out disadvantaged people living elsewhere (there will be a lack of completeness). Area targeting has been criticised for missing a majority of the disadvantaged, who, it is claimed, live outside the most deprived areas.there is also a trade-off in the way targeting is applied. Narrow targeting of the most deprived areas (for instance the most deprived 10 per cent of wards) will be relatively efficient, but will miss considerable numbers of the disadvantaged.a broader range of areas will capture more of the disadvantaged population, but also even more who are not disadvantaged. New evidence presented by CASE indicates that multiple deprivation is concentrated in areas and that using the IMD 2000 (in England) it is possible to achieve good levels of comprehensiveness, while still concentrating on the more deprived wards. For instance, if we take benefit claims as a measure of individual deprivation, then the 20 per cent most deprived wards, which contain 28 per cent of the English population, have 53 per cent of all Income Support/Job Seekers Allowance claimants. That is, a majority of the disadvantaged population (on this measure) are reached. In terms of the population of these wards, 19 per cent claim IS/JSA (against 10 per cent nationally) and 37 per cent of children live in IS/JSA households (against 21per cent nationally). The levels of efficiency and completeness achieved by different bandings of the IMD 2000, and the trade-off between the two, is shown in Figure 2. 4 Figure 2:The efficiency and completeness of IMD 2000 defined wards in England Proportion of national population in the areas 88 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) areas 40% Top 20% wards 28% Top wards 14% Top 5% wards 7% JSA/IS claimants in area as % of national claimants 88 NRF areas 57% Top 20% wards 53% Top wards 31% Top 5% wards 18% JSA/IS claimants in area as a % of area population 88 NRF areas 15% Top 20% wards 1 Top wards 22% Top 5% wards 26%
Syd Shelton There is concern that existing indexes fail to pick up deprivation in the countryside. Indicators have been used that are invalid for measuring rural deprivation, such as car ownership. However the IMD 2000, and related indexes, have avoided this, as well as methodological problems associated with small populations.they also include a measure, geographic access to services, which gives weight to an aspect of deprivation important to countryside areas. Nonetheless, area targeting will not work as well for rural areas as urban ones it is both less efficient and less complete. For example, the 20 per cent most deprived wards on the IMD 2000 contain barely 20 per cent of IS/JSA claimants who live in rural areas, against 53 per cent nationally. Disadvantaged individuals in rural areas are less concentrated, making area targeting a less effective way to reach them. The New Opportunities Fund will take account of rural needs when targeting funding. For instance, in our five-a-day programme - promoting healthy eating in deprived areas - eligible Primary Care Trusts were selected using the IMD 2000, balanced by an additional group of Trusts which have both considerable disadvantage and a rural population.we know that the deficiencies of ward level statistics for targeting within rural areas means working with knowledgeable local partners. For instance, we are delivering Doorstep Greens through the Countryside Agency, and its network of regional advisers, and the Scottish Land Fund through Highland and Island Enterprise. These results show that area targeting is an effective means of reaching those suffering deprivation, but we need to be aware of its limits, and think of ways of dealing with these. Many deprived individuals do live outside deprived areas. In addition, area targeting may create discontinuities and resentments between neighbourhoods.there is also evidence of funding shadows, where nearby areas find it particularly difficult to get funds. Overall, there are good arguments for a flexible approach to targeting.there may also be advantages in targeting social groups in some funding streams, in particular groups whose members we know are at greater risk of exclusion, for instance the elderly, ethnic minorities, lone parent households, families with children, and those without citizenship. In all cases, once target wards or districts are identified, the next step must be to ensure that both funding and project activities are reaching the neighbourhoods most in need for which local knowledge is essential. If the aim is to prevent exclusion, not just to compensate the deprived, successful targeting must be complemented by initiatives aimed at the causes of exclusion, and which fund activities of proven effectiveness. The New Opportunities Fund is delivering a 750.75m initiative, New opportunities for PE and sport. All regions are eligible for funding, but additional funding is targeted on the most deprived areas. We are looking to our local partners for proposals to use the money in ways that will promote social inclusion; in particular by involving people in the development of facilities, finding and meeting local needs, and aiming to narrow the gap between school and community. 5
SECTION 4 Where are deprived areas,and what do they look like? Looking at several indexes from across the 1990s, CASE found that all identified a disproportionately large number of deprived wards in Scotland and, to a lesser extent,wales, when set against their populations. Evidence for Northern Ireland from the DSS social exclusion indicators (1999) points to extensive exclusion. Deprived areas are spread unevenly across the English regions, see Table 1. If we take the 20 per cent highest ranked wards on the IMD 2000, the North East has five per cent of the English population, but 15 per cent of deprived wards. However, we should remember that there are complexities to this picture. Some indicators of exclusion, such as pre-gsce educational achievement, change little between regions, while others, such as children in low income and workless households, vary much more. In addition, as noted in Figure1, indexes differ in the areas they identify as deprived and where these are. However, across indexes, London and the North (North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside) together contain a clear majority of England s deprived areas. Table 1: Regional location of deprived wards (20 per cent most deprived) and districts (ranked in top 50 on any district level summary of the IMD 2000). Baseline: proportion of English population (%) 14% 5% 14% 8% 15% 100% Distribution of deprived wards (%) 18% 15% 21% 5% 7% 6% 100% Distribution of deprived districts (%) 20% 17% 26% 11% 1% 2% 5% 100% London North East North West Yorkshire and Humberside West Midlands East Midlands Eastern South East South West England 6
Syd Shelton Looking at trends in where deprived areas are found, there is both continuity and change. The continuity comes in the ranking of which areas are deprived. Nine out of 10 of the most deprived 10 per cent of Scottish postcode sectors in 1991 where again in the bottom tenth of the 1998 Area Deprivation Index. In England the same authorities, in the same order, Liverpool, Newham, Manchester and Hackney, were in the worst four positions in the Index of Local Deprivation 1998 and its 1991 counterpart. Table 2 shows how deprived wards in England fit within different types of area (selecting from amongst the National Statistics area classification). Table 2: Numbers of deprived wards in different types of area Number of wards in England of this type 542 685 577 Number of wards of this type amongst 20% most deprived 344 150 106 Proportion falling in the 20% most deprived wards 64% 22% 18% Coalfields Coast and county resorts Established manufacturing fringe Change is in an increasing polarisation between better and worse off neighbourhoods, particularly within cities and towns. For example, in Sheffield between 1977 and 1997 differences in unemployment levels between wards grew from twofold to fivefold. Between 1981 and 1991 overall mortality rates (deaths per thousand of population) fell, but gains were greatest in more affluent areas, and for some age groups mortality rates rose in deprived areas. Evidence from the IMD 2000 suggests that deprived wards generally sit within deprived districts. Only 38 of the 422 wards in the most deprived five per cent are not in the 81 districts reaching the top 50 on one or more of the district level domains. Only four of these wards are in the less deprived half of districts: Stanhope in Ashford, Chelmsley Wood in Solihull and Clifford and Bucklow in Greater Manchester three of these are large council housing estates, one an area with a concentrated Asian population 276 426 697 277 755 104 241 63 206 55 38% 57% 74% Deprived wards have much higher levels of social housing than the average, often accounting for more than 50 per cent of households in the area. However, there are also significant areas of private renting, and low-income owner occupation, the latter sometimes associated with minority ethnic communities. Though most are predominantly white, deprived wards have a larger black and minority ethnic population than the mean. The 88 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund districts contain over 85 per cent of the total black and minority ethnic population of England. Targeting deprived areas thus also targets minority populations. 7% Established service centres Manufacturing centres Mixed urban Ports and industry Remoter rural There is currently much less information on smaller, neighbourhood areas, below the ward level (though this is changing with National Stastitics, new Neighbourhood Statistics Service). However, the English House Condition Survey (1998) identified at least 3,000 neighbourhoods of 100 or more homes with concentrated problems of run-down, vacant or derelict housing or vandalism and graffiti.this implies over 500,000 people living in such neighbourhoods. 7
Further information and references Rahman, M. et al, Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2000, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000. Gordon, D., et al, Poverty and social exclusion in Britain, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000. The full reporttargeting Social Exclusion by Rebecca Tunstall, Joseph Murray, Ruth Lupton and Anne Power; will be published in the CASE papers series and available on the CASE website (http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case) from Jan 2002. For enquires about this work at the New Opportunities Fund, please send an email headed Targeting Social Exclusion to sarah.cheshire@nof.org.uk Our Equal Opportunities Commitment The New Opportunities Fund is committed to promoting equality of opportunity for everyone. The Fund will aim to treat everyone equally and to ensure that no grant applicant, job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment than another. It is the responsibility of all staff and Board Members to uphold and implement our equality policy. Environmental Statement The New Opportunities Fund is working to minimise its environmental impact and only uses paper from sustainable sources. This publication is also available in community languages. November 2001 8