The slides cover the conceptual underpinnings of the 2011 Pobal Haase-Pratschke (HP) Deprivation Index for Small Areas, but also briefly allude to the Longitudinal and All-Island HP Deprivation Indices.

1. Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke
THE HP DEPRIVATION INDICES
Nevin Economic Research Institute – 4th March 2015

2. 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

3. Overview and
Conceptual Underpinnings

4. 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
01
NI
01
NI
01
NI
01
NI
01
NI
01
NI
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

5.  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

6.  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)

7.  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
δ1
δ2
δ3
δ4
δ5
δ6
NEW APPROACH: CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
(CFA)

8.  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

9. Age Dependency Rateδ1
Population Changeδ2
Primary Education onlyδ3
Third Level Educationδ4
Professional Classes
δ5
Persons per Room
δ6
Lone Parents
δ7
Semi- and Unskilled Classes
δ8
Male Unemployment Rateδ9
Female Unemployment Rateδ10
Demographic
Growth
Social Class
Composition
Labour Market
Situation
THE BASIC MODEL OF THE SA-LEVEL
POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX

10.  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

11. most disadvantaged most affluent
marginally below the average marginally above the average
disadvantaged affluent
very disadvantaged very affluent
extremely disadvantaged extremely affluent
MAPPING DEPRIVATION

12. The Pobal HP Deprivation Index
Small Area (SA) Level Analysis, 2006 - 2011

13. RELATIVE
INDEX SCORES
2011
Relative Index Score 2011
Haase & 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)

14. The Longitudinal HP Deprivation Index
Electoral Division (ED) Level Analysis, 1991-2011

15. ED-LEVEL
ABSOLUTE
INDEX SCORES
1991
HP Deprivation Index ED 1991 absolute
Haase & 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)

16. ED-LEVEL
ABSOLUTE
INDEX SCORES
1996
HP Deprivation Index ED 1996 absolute
Haase & 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)

17. ED-LEVEL
ABSOLUTE
INDEX SCORES
2002
HP Deprivation Index ED 2002 absolute
Haase & 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)

18. ED-LEVEL
ABSOLUTE
INDEX SCORES
2006
HP Deprivation Index ED 2006 absolute
Haase & 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)

19. ED-LEVEL
ABSOLUTE
INDEX SCORES
2011
HP Deprivation Index ED2011 absolute
Haase & 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)

20. ED-LEVEL
RELATIVE
INDEX SCORES
1991
HP Deprivation Index ED 1991 relative
Haase & 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)

21. ED-LEVEL
RELATIVE
INDEX SCORES
1996
HP Deprivation Index ED 1996 relative
Haase & 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)

22. ED-LEVEL
RELATIVE
INDEX SCORES
2002
HP Deprivation Index ED 2002 relative
Haase & 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)

23. ED-LEVEL
RELATIVE
INDEX SCORES
2006
HP Deprivation Index ED 2006 relative
Haase & 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)

24. ED-LEVEL
RELATIVE
INDEX SCORES
2011
HP Deprivation Index ED 2011 relative
Haase & 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)

25. 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

26. The All-Island HP Deprivation Index
Small Area (SA) Level Analysis, 2011

27.  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)

28. Demographic
Decline
Social Class
Disadvantage
Labour Market
Deprivation
v3 Age Dependency Rateδ 3
v2 Population Changeδ 2
v5 Primary Education Onlyδ 5
v6 Third Level Educationδ 6
v11 Persons per Roomδ 11
v7 Professional Classesδ 7
v8 Semi/Unskilled Classesδ8
v4 Lone Parentsδ4
v9 Male Unemploymentδ 9
v10 Female Unemploymentδ 10
COMMON DIMENSIONALITY OF DEPRIVATION

29. 2011 ALL-ISLAND
HP DEPRIVATION
INDEX SCORE
All-Island HP Deprivation Score
Haase & 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

30. 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.

31. Applications of the
Pobal HP Deprivation Index

32.  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

33. LowModerateHigh
AffluentDeprived
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

34. 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%

35. 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 Distribution Target Distribution
Data
Sources
Reference
Models
Model
Choices

36. For more detailed Information on all of the
HP Deprivation Indices see
www.trutzhaase.eu