Hidden pockets of deprivation in London and rural England have been uncovered by new government rankings that will shape policy and funding decisions for several years to come.
The first national study of deprivation to be conducted since the Covid-19 pandemic revealed that northern cities, industrial heartlands and coastal towns are still home to the most deprived communities in the country.
An area in the district of Tendring, part of Reform UK leader Nigel Farage’s Clacton constituency on the Essex coast, was the most deprived of all 33,755 neighbourhoods in England for the fourth time.
But the data, published on Thursday, also revealed “cheek by jowl” deprivation — where low and high ranked areas sit side-by-side — in many parts of the country that previous studies have failed to pick up.
Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.
The housing, communities and local government ministry’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) ranks neighbourhoods based on 55 indicators measuring income, employment, education, health, crime, housing barriers and the living environment.
Deprivation is defined to be broader than poverty alone and attempts to measure “unmet need” across a range of living conditions as well as financial resources.
How has the picture changed since 2019?
Many of the largest changes have occurred in London. Neighbourhoods in Barnet and Ealing boroughs have become more deprived relative to the rest of England, while regeneration projects have helped to improve rankings in Nine Elms, south London, and Newham borough in the east of the capital.
This partly reflects material changes in relative deprivation but has also been driven by an overhaul of the way the index is calculated, which has put more weight on housing costs.
Alasdair Rae, a geospatial consultant, said the previous data had masked the “cheek by jowl” deprivation in London, although the overall picture has improved since the early 2000s.
“Cities in the north of England really have not improved to the same extent and there has been further decline in places like Blackpool, Grimsby and Middlesbrough,” he added.
Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.
Rural areas also appear relatively more deprived, reflecting a deliberate effort to better capture disadvantage in coastal and countryside communities.
Despite this, urban neighbourhoods are far more likely to be deprived than rural areas. Just 3.8 per cent of rural areas were in the most deprived fifth nationally, compared with 23.2 per cent of urban areas.
Rowland Atkinson, professor at Sheffield university, said most of the “usual suspects” continued to suffer because of structural failings in the economy and a lack of redistributive policymaking.
“It is not hard to see why the geography of misery, as it was once called, is an enduring phenomenon,” he added.
Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.
One neighbourhood in Clacton has once again ranked the most deprived in the country, with parts of many south coast towns including Margate and Hastings also faring badly.
However, the most deprived areas are concentrated in urban centres and former industrial heartlands such as Bradford, Nottingham and Blackburn.
The data shows “little to no progress” has occurred in recent years, said Baroness Hilary Armstrong, a Labour peer and chair of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, which was launched last year.
“These places have been battered by deindustrialisation, changing tourism patterns and, more recently, austerity,” she added. “Yet they have been let down by recent governments, who have not prioritised them.”
The least deprived areas are most commonly found in the London commuter belt. The Hertfordshire town of St Albans is home to the four least deprived neighbourhoods in the country.
Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.
Deprivation rankings are used to allocate resources for policing, education, public health and council funding, raising concerns about the impact of the changes could amid a contentious overhaul of local government funding.
Luke Akehurst, Labour MP for North Durham, said the changes could mean “leafy southern suburbs and the most exclusive” parts of central London get millions more in funding at the expense of other areas.
“That can’t be right: the biggest social challenges lie in ex-industrial seats like mine in the North and Midlands, which have been let down for generations,” he added.
Alex Singleton, professor of geographic information science at Liverpool university, said changes to the indicators and methods behind the index “may have significant implications for local government funding”.
“Some areas that have improved their rankings might see reduced funding allocations, even if residents’ lived experiences haven’t substantially changed,” he added.
Local government minister Alison McGovern said the statistics showed previous policies had “barely begun to break the cycle of deprivation, health inequality, stagnant local growth and, most importantly, loss of hope” in some of the most deprived areas.
The government has introduced a £1bn crisis support package to help restore prosperity and last month launched a £5bn “Pride in Place” programme to revive high streets, parks and public spaces.
“Our devolution revolution is putting communities back in control — no political power plays or dictates from Whitehall — instead, real people that live and breathe their region will drive our decade of national renewal,” she added.
Design and additional development by Alan Smith, Tomoya Suzuki and Chesca Kirkland
How the FT analysed IMD data
Rankings for middle super output areas are based on the rank of the population-weighted average score for the relevant lower super output areas. Change over time was calculated by mapping IMD 2019 data on to 2021 boundaries. Areas that split or merged were assigned using the approach outlined in the methodology for the MHCLG Pride in Place funding allocation.