Cross cutting theme - Deprivation Contents Part I: Deprivation in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

cross cutting theme deprivation contents
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Cross cutting theme - Deprivation Contents Part I: Deprivation in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Cross cutting theme - Deprivation Contents Part I: Deprivation in Hampshire Part II: Policy challenges in addressing deprivation at local level Part III: Case Studies Summary Part I: Deprivation in Hampshire The Indices of Deprivation &


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Cross cutting theme - Deprivation

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Contents

Part I: Deprivation in Hampshire Part II: Policy challenges in addressing deprivation at local level Part III: Case Studies Summary

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Part I: Deprivation in Hampshire

slide-4
SLIDE 4

The Indices of Deprivation & the Index of Multiple Deprivation

Index of Multiple Deprivation

Older People 2 sub-domains (types)

Income Deprivation Employment Deprivation

Education & Skills Deprivation Health & Disability Deprivation

Crime Deprivation Barriers to Housing & Services Living Environment Deprivation Children Adults Young People Housing Services Indoors Outside 2 sub-domains each (types) 2 sub-domains (types)

22.5% 22.5% 13.5% 13.5% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% A combined Index of 7 weighted domains (types of deprivation)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

IMD Can be used for: Cannot be used for: ✓ Comparing small areas across England

X Quantifying how deprived a small area is

✓ Identifying the most deprived small areas

X Identifying deprived people

✓ Exploring types of deprivation

X Saying how affluent a place is

✓ Comparing larger areas e.g. local authorities

X Comparing with small areas in other UK

countries

✓Looking at changes in relative deprivation

X Measuring real change in deprivation over time

The Index of Multiple Deprivation and How it Can be Used

slide-6
SLIDE 6

A Story of Urban Concentrations – Hidden Pockets

20% Most Deprived Areas 20% Least Deprived Areas Close proximity

Most & Least Deprived Places in Close Proximity 20% most deprived Places DCLG Index of Multiple Deprivation

41 28 18 8 1

Number of Area

1 1 1

Havant

Aldershot Andover

Portsmouth Southampton

Ventnor

Gosport

Blackfield Farnborough

1

Burlesdon

6

Newport Ryde

4 1 1 1

Shanklin Sandown

1

Netley View

slide-7
SLIDE 7

IMD in Havant and Leigh Park Estate

Leigh Park Regeneration Fund Source: Havant Borough Council: Local Plan 2036

  • Havant accounts 50%
  • f all deprived places

in Hampshire*.

  • Almost 1 in 4 of all

LSOAs in Havant fall within the bottom 20% in England.

  • Leigh Park accounts

for two thirds of place deprivation in Havant and one third of place deprivation in Hampshire.

*Hampshire County Council Area

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Different Deprivations ➔ Different Distributions ➔ Different Policy Challenges

13 41 28 27 3 2 11 30 25 26 6 5 22 28 16 26 4 4 24 50 44 58 23 27 7 51 26 20 4 3 72 39 26 7 9 9 13 26 18 81 32 27 64 87 15 21 4

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Isle of Wight Southampton Portsmouth South Hampshire Central Hampshire North Hampshire

Overall IMD Income (22.5%) Employment (22.5%) Education & Skills (13.5%) Health & Disability (13.5%) Crime (9.3%) Barriers to Housing & Services (9.3%) Living Environment (9.3%)

Number of Deprived Places The number of deprived places exhibiting that type of deprivation

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Types of Deprivation where LAs Better Placed to Intervene

Income Deprivation Employment Deprivation Education & Skills Deprivation Barriers to Housing & Services

Legend

1 10% most deprived 2 11% to 20% 3 21% to 30% 4 31% to 40% 5 41% to 50% 6 51% to 60% 7 61% to 70% 8 71% to 80% 9 81% to 90% 10 91% to 100% Deciles (England Base)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Part II: Challenges of Tackling Deprivation at the Local Level

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Policy Challenges

Often easier to Tackle Deprived Individuals over Place Deprivation Limited Access to National Databases, GDPR & Disclosure Deprivation Policies often directed by Central Government Constraints on Funding & Resources Getting engagement buy-in v stigmatising

V

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Deprived Places & People: Where you Live Matters, as Well as Who you Are

Place A: Not Deprived Place B: Deprived

Churn (a policy challenge)

Person’s circumstances Improve, may relocate Replaced by ‘deprived’ Individual/family

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Part III: Case Studies

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Supporting Families

Two Phases (STEP 1 & II):

  • STEP 1 2012 and

2014/15 targeted approx 600 per annum.

  • STEP 2 to 2020

targeting over a 1,000 families in 2015/16 and 2016/17.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Skills & Employment Driven Case Studies

  • Construction Skills Fund (CFS)
  • Solent LEP – Centre of Excellence in Engineering & Manufacturing Advanced

Skills Training (CEMAST)

  • Hampshire Careers Partnership and NCOP Funding
  • ESF Solent Traineeship Engagement and Participation (STEP) Programme
  • ESF Solent LEP & Enterprise M3 NEET Projects
  • European Social Fund (ESF) Projects - skills support for the unemployed
  • Economic Development

Sector specific

slide-16
SLIDE 16
  • Hampshire as a whole has low levels of deprivation, BUT has concentrated

pockets across the County, but focused in a few large neighbourhoods

  • Deprivation based on the IMD is good at locating relative place deprivation, but

cannot identify deprived individuals – often hidden deprivation

  • Although the IMD is about deprived places, most policies target individuals/families
  • Hampshire County Council departments make a major contribution to easing

deprivation and preventing people from falling into deprivation through its skills & education programmes which increase employability and mobility.

  • Economic development work with local businesses in creating employment
  • pportunities that can be tapped into by all residents including those from deprived

areas.

Summary