1

Economic Strategy & Intelligence

Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CLG has recently published the latest Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2010), comprising deprivation scores and National ranks for all LSOAs in England, plus borough summary results. Since it uses the same methodology and very similar indicators to the previous analyses (in 2004 and 2007), the results are effectively comparable. The IMD 2010 mostly uses 2008 data i.e. at the end of a period of generally rising prosperity before the onset of the current recession. In general, the results of IMD 2010 are consistent with those of previous IMDs, with no major changes to the pattern and extent of deprivation in the Tees Valley. The Tees Valley still has a high proportion of LSOAs within the national most deprived 5%. However, some detailed changes can be detected. The most notable change has been the increase in deprivation in parts of Darlington. These have changed Darlington’s borough ranks significantly and Darlington is now ranked as being more deprived than Stockton-on-Tees on most measures. Deprivation in East Cleveland has continued to rise, but there have been improvements in parts of Middlesbrough and other parts of Redcar & Cleveland. The proportion of LSOAs in the National most affluent areas has risen in all boroughs. This suggests that prosperity within the Tees Valley is becoming even more polarised between the affluent and very poor.

2

Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010

CONTENTS

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Borough Results 4 Analysis of LSOA Rankings 5 Child and Old People Indices 6 Domains 7 Changes since 2004 and 2007 at LSOA Level 8 Estimated Ward Ranks 9 Conclusions 10 Further Information

Annex 1 Indicator List Annex 2 Borough Rankings Annex 3A-3E Estimated Ward Ranks Graphs 2A-2E Changes in Ward Ranks Map 1 LSOA National Ranks Map 2 LSOA Rank Changes 2004-2010 Map 3 LSOA Rank Changes 2007-2010

3

Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 1 Introduction CLG has recently published the latest edition of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2010). The IMD is a nationwide analysis of deprivation for local areas, and has been published in various forms since the 1990s. This edition uses data at 2008, whilst the two previous editions were published in 2007 (based on 2005 data) and in 2004 (based on 2001 data). This report highlights the main results for the Tees Valley. It should be noted that the data used in the IMD 2010 was at the end of a period of generally rising prosperity and will NOT reflect the impact of the economic downturn since 2008. 2 Methodology The IMD 2010 uses an identical methodology to previous IMDs, where a wide variety of indicators are combined into 6 domains, which are then combined into Overall deprivation scores for each LSOA, which are then ranked. The indicators used in the IMD 2010 are listed in Annex 1. They are generally similar to those used in the IMD 2007 and IMD 2004 previously, so as the same methodology is used, the results are of the three analyses are effectively comparable. As before, results are calculated for LSOAs within England, and summaries of the LSOA results are published at borough level. 3 Borough Results The IMD 2010 contains the same set of borough / district rankings as previous IMDs (see Annex 2). The borough rankings are summaries of the results of LSOA level within each borough, as the IMD does not analyse borough level data. The borough rankings vary greatly in usefulness – the ‘scale’ measures convey little information as they are based purely on numbers of people, not rates. A complicating factor when comparing the IMD 2010 with previous IMDs is that there has been some reorganisation of local government in 2009, where several shire district councils have been abolished and unitary authorities formed – locally, this has occurred within Durham and Northumberland where county unitary authorities have replaced the shire districts. This means that in the official data, ranks are out of only 326 districts/ unitaries in the IMD 2010, compared to the 354 in previous analyses – this obviously makes comparisons of borough ranks between the various IMDs difficult. However, it is possible to recalculate the new results on the old district basis. This report shows all figures on the pre 2009 basis – ie ranks are of out of 354 English districts and boroughs. Table 1 contains the IMD rankings for the Tees Valley boroughs

4

Table 1 – Tees Valley IMD Borough Rankings (out of 354 Pre-2009 districts)

Rank of Average

Score

Rank of Average

Rank

Rank of Local

Concen- tration

Rank of Extent

Rank of Income Scale

Rank of Employ-

ment Scale

IMD 2010 Darlington 79 112 34 68 131 128Hartlepool 25 33 13 22 104 94Middlesbrough 8 29 5 9 62 60Redcar & Cleveland 52 78 17 53 87 72Stockton-on-Tees 107 149 32 79 74 61IMD 2007 Darlington 95 118 52 82 133 123Hartlepool 23 36 18 19 102 90Middlesbrough 9 25 6 9 62 58Redcar & Cleveland 50 63 12 55 83 67Stockton-on-Tees 98 138 33 77 75 62IMD 2004 Darlington 90 109 57 80 124 118Hartlepool 14 18 13 15 93 79Middlesbrough 10 19 4 11 53 53Redcar & Cleveland 44 57 14 54 75 61Stockton-on-Tees 75 107 17 65 61 55

Of the six rankings, the rank of Average Score, Local Concentration and Extent are the most important, with the rank of Average Scores giving an impression of the overall level of deprivation, Extent showing how much of the borough is very deprived and Concentration indicating the deprivation of the most severely deprived areas within the borough. The general picture for the Tees Valley is broadly unchanged between the IMD 2004 and IMD 2010, although some changes can be discerned. In terms of the Rank of Average score, Hartlepool and Redcar & Cleveland have improved their ranks slightly, whilst Stockton and Darlington have effectively swapped positions. Stockton’s rank rose significantly since 2004, indicating a decline in relative deprivation, whilst in contrast, Darlington’s rank fell between 2007 and 2010. This pattern is broadly followed by the Extent and Concentration ranks, with Darlington’s concentration rank falling sharply. This indicates that its most deprived parts have become relatively more deprived over the last few years. It is notable that all boroughs and especially Middlesbrough remain very high in the Concentration rankings. This indicates that the most deprived parts of all Tees Valley boroughs remain amongst the very most deprived areas in the country. 4 Analysis of LSOA Rankings Map 1 shows the overall pattern of LSOA results, which is broadly similar to that from previous IMDs. To get an idea of how the distribution of deprivation has changed between the three IMD analyses, we have calculated the percentage of each borough’s LSOAs within each ‘quintile’ ie the proportion within the National most deprived 20%, the most deprived 20-40% etc. The most deprived 20% has been further split into the most deprived 5%, 5-10%, and 10-20%. These figures are shown in Table 2 and graphed in Graph 1.

5

Table 2a % of LSOAs within National Rank groups

Most

Dep 5% 5-10% 10-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% Affluent

20%

Most Dep 10%

2010 Darlington 13% 3% 13% 21% 21% 11% 19% 16%Hartlepool 19% 17% 9% 17% 19% 7.0% 12% 36%Middlesbrough 31% 16% 9% 9% 11% 18% 6% 47%Redcar & Cleveland 15% 7% 14% 21% 16% 16% 11% 22%Stockton- on-Tees 11%. 4% 14% 17% 13% 16% 25% 15%Tees Valley 18% 9% 12% 17% 15% 15% 15% 26%2007 Darlington 8% 6% 11% 21% 22% 11% 21% 14%Hartlepool 19% 16% 12% 17% 19% 12% 5% 35%Middlesbrough 33% 14% 10% 11% 16% 13% 3% 47%Redcar & Cleveland 16% 5% 12% 28% 16% 13% 9% 22%Stockton-on-Tees 10% 3% 15% 18% 15% 17% 22% 14%Tees Valley 17% 8% 12% 19% 17% 14% 13% 25%2004 Darlington 6% 8% 11% 22% 24% 11% 17% 14%Hartlepool 24% 16% 16% 17% 17% 9% 2% 40%Middlesbrough 38% 13% 8% 11% 18% 10% 2% 50%Redcar & Cleveland 16% 4% 13% 33% 13% 14% 7% 21%Stockton-on-Tees 10% 7% 17% 15% 15% 21% 15% 17%Tees Valley 19% 9% 13% 19% 17% 14% 9% 28%

Graph 1

Distribution of Tees Valley LSOA National Ranks

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Most Dep5%

5-10% 10-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% Aff 20%

2010

2007

2004

The table and graph can give us some indication in how the pattern of relative deprivation has changed over time, though it should be emphasised that the IMD measures relative rather than absolute deprivation – the level of deprivation within an LSOA may improve in absolute terms, but its national ranking may rise or fall, depending on its improvement relative to all other LSOAs. The graph illustrates that the Tees Valley has a somewhat unusual distribution of LSOAs, with very high proportion in the most deprived 5% and 10%

6

but relatively few in the most deprived 10-20%. Overall, over 38% of the Tees Valley’s LSOAs are in the National most deprived 20%. The overall distribution has not changed greatly between 2004 and 2010, though there are now slightly smaller proportions in the moderately deprived groupings (10-40%). Looking at Table 1, whilst at Tees Valley level there have not been major changes in the distribution of LSOA ranks, there have been some changes at borough level, with a divergence of results. Hartlepool and Middlesbrough have both shown a decline in the proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived 5%, though in Middlesbrough’s case this is counterpointed by an increase in the proportion in the most deprived 5-10%. Conversely, Darlington has shown a significant increase the proportion of LSOAs within the most deprived 5%. It is also notable that all boroughs have experienced significant rises in the proportions of LSOAs within the National most affluent 20%. This would indicate that the Tees Valley’s more prosperous areas became relatively more affluent between 2000 and 2008 and suggests that the gap between rich and poor within the Tees Valley has widened rather than shrunk in recent years. This is especially true of Darlington, where the proportion of LSOAs in both the very poorest 5% and most affluent 20% rose. Since economic prosperity generally rose over the period of the three IMD analyses, this indicates that the benefits of this increase in prosperity have not been shared evenly, and that the poorest areas have benefited the least. The proportion of LSOAs within the most 10% shown above can be calculated for all local authorities and ranked, as shown in table 2b below. The ranks are of the 354 pre-2009 areas. Table 2b Ranks of Percentage of Borough’s LSOAs within most deprived 10%

2010 2007 2004Darlington 56 59 59Hartlepool 10 12 10Middlesbrough 2 6 6Redcar & Cleveland 37 39 42Stockton-on-Tees 57 60 52

These generally show little change, though with a slight tendency for the Tees Valley borough’s ranks to decline. Middlesbrough now has the 2nd highest proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived 10% in the country. 5 Child and Old People Indices The IMD also contains Children and Old People indices, based on the income domain only. These indices give an indication of poverty amongst children and old people. Table 3 counts the proportion of each borough's LSOAs within the national most deprived 10% for 2010, 2007 and 2004.

7

Table 3 Percentage of LSOAs within National Most Deprived 10% Child and Old People Income Deprivation Indices

Child Old

People2010 Darlington 11% 11%Hartlepool 35% 31%Middlesbrough 40% 34%Redcar & Cleveland 17% 13%Stockton-on-Tees 13% 15%

Tees Valley 22% 20%2007 Darlington 10% 13%Hartlepool 24% 29%Middlesbrough 35% 41%Redcar & Cleveland 14% 16%Stockton-on-Tees 12% 16%

Tees Valley 19% 23%2004 Darlington 13% 10%Hartlepool 35% 24%Middlesbrough 41% 31%Redcar & Cleveland 20% 8%Stockton-on-Tees 18% 14%

Tees Valley 25% 17% These results present something of a puzzle – between 2004 and 2007, child poverty appears to have improved in relative terms, but in 2010 appears to have fallen back close to where it was before in 2004. Similarly, the Old People index showed an increase in poverty between 2004 and 2007, but in most cases an apparent decrease between 2007 and 2010. Fortunately, the index scores are published and these are straightforward proportions of people so can be analysed relatively easily. If these scores are averaged for each Tees Valley borough, it seems that in absolute terms, child poverty decreased notably between 2004 and 2007, but only improved slightly between 2007 and 2010. It seems likely that whilst local child poverty improved slightly, other areas improved more, thus worsening the Tees Valley’s rankings. Similarly Old People poverty increased notably between 2004 and 2007, but only worsened slightly further between 2007 and 2010. Again it seems likely that other areas worsened to a greater extent, improving the Tees Valley’s ranks. These results illustrate the issues of measuring relative and absolute deprivation. 6 Domains As mentioned above, the IMD analysis is based on calculation of deprivation in 6 separate domains, whose results are combined into an overall score. The individual domain scores and ranks are published. Table 4 shows the percentage of each Borough’s LSOAs that are ranked in the National most deprived 10% for each domain.

8

Table 4: Percentage of LSOAs in National Most Deprived 10% - Domains

Overall IncomeEmploy

ment HealthEduc ation

Barriers to

Serv CrimeLiving

Envt2010 Darlington 16% 16% 17% 35% 14% 3% 5% 5%Hartlepool 36% 34% 52% 43% 26% 0% 14% 0%Middlesbrough 47% 41% 45% 59% 40% 1% 43% 13%Redcar & Cleveland 22% 20% 32% 38% 20% 0% 15% 2%Stockton-on-Tees 15% 17% 21% 26% 25% 1% 4% 2%Tees Valley 26% 25% 32% 39% 25% 1% 16% 4%2007 Darlington 14% 14% 16% 19% 16% 3% 0% 3%Hartlepool 34% 36% 50% 45% 21% 0% 16% 0%Middlesbrough 47% 40% 42% 55% 40% 1% 52% 11%Redcar & Cleveland 22% 20% 33% 29% 22% 0% 15% 2%Stockton-on-Tees 14% 15% 22% 19% 20% 2% 13% 2%Tees Valley 25% 24% 32% 32% 24% 1% 20% 4%2004 Darlington 14% 13% 22% 17% 11% 3% 3% 2%Hartlepool 40% 40% 57% 48% 22% 0% 16% 0%Middlesbrough 50% 50% 51% 55% 41% 0% 50% 10%Redcar & Cleveland 21% 20% 34% 25% 22% 0% 7% 0%Stockton-on-Tees 17% 19% 28% 22% 20% 1% 5% 1%Tees Valley 28% 28% 37% 33% 24% 1% 16% 3%

The differences between the results of the IMD 2010 and previous analyses are mostly fairly minor, though there have been some notable changes. Firstly, there are generally significant increases in the proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived 10% in the Health domain, especially in Darlington, which must contribute to the increased in relative deprivation noted earlier. There have also been some changes in the Crime domain. These have been somewhat erratic, but a majority show a smaller proportion in the most deprived 10%. However, there was a significant increase in Redcar & Cleveland and Stockton between 2004 and 2007, though Stockton’s figure subsequently declined again.

7 Changes since 2004 and 2007 at LSOA Level The effective comparability of the IMD 2010 with the IMD 2004 and IMD 2007 means that it’s is possible to track changes in deprivation ranking at LSOA level. As always we have to remember that changes in IMD rankings enable us to track relative, but not absolute, changes in deprivation. We have analysed changes in relative deprivation by the percentage change in rank rather than absolute rank change as a change of 100 rank positions for an LSOA rank in the top 1000 is of far greater significance to one ranked over 20,000. Maps 2 and 3 show areas that changed ranks since 2004 and 2007 by more than 25% - this is an arbitrary figure designed to highlight the LSOAs gaining or losing ranks by the greatest amount. The maps show only the relatively deprived LSOAs ie those that are, or have been, in the most deprived 50%. The pattern of areas whose deprivation improved or declined is complex, and it is evident from the maps that the pattern of changes between 2007 and 2010 is, in many cases, not the same as that occurred between 2004 and 2007.

9

East Cleveland, including Loftus, Skinningrove and Carlin How became more deprived between 2004 and 2007 and this has continued to 2010. Many central and northern areas of Darlington (Bank Top, Central, North Road, also Red Hall and parts of Cockerton West) areas have become more deprived between 2004 and 2010 Between 2004 and 2007 there was evidence that some of the peripheral estates of social housing (eg Hardwick, Firthmoor, Owton, Rossmere, West Middlesbrough and parts of East Middlesbrough) had seen an improvement in deprivation. However, between 2007 and 2010, this trend has stopped, and some of these areas have lost some of their previous gains. However, parts of Billingham and the Firthmoor and Beckfields areas have continued to see improvements in deprivation. Up to 2007, areas close to town centres had generally seen significant increases in deprivation. Between 2007 and 2010, in several cases this decline has stopped, though this has not been consistent across the area. There have been improvements in deprivation in several parts of Middlesbrough, notably the Acklam, Kader and Easterside areas. Deprivation in the South Bank and Dormanstown areas of Redcar & Cleveland has continued to increase, though deprivation in areas close by such as Eston, Ormesby, and Normanby has declined. 8 Estimated Ward Ranks Whilst the IMD produces results for LSOAs, it is possible to estimate approximate national ward ranks based on the LSOA scores. Annex’s 3A-3E show TVU’s estimated ranks for current Tees Valley Wards, with ranks being out of 7,934 where Rank 1 is most deprived. Between the IMD 2004 and IMD 2010 there were 77 wards that improved notably (35 with a major change,) 26 became more deprived (12 with a major change) and 9 experience insignificant changes in rank. Significant improvers amongst the deprived wards were Beckfield and Hemlington in Middlesbrough, Rift House, Owton and Rossmere in Hartlepool and Billingham Central in Stockton. Significant wards who experienced an increase in deprivation included Loftus, Grangetown and Lockwood in Redcar & Cleveland, Northgate, North Road, Central and Bank Top in Darlington, and Dyke House in Hartlepool. Graphs 2A-2E are bar-charts for each borough showing the percentage change in rank between 2004 and 2010 and 2007 and 2010. A negative change represents an increase in relative deprivation, whilst a positive change shows an improvement.

10

9 Conclusions Overall, the results of the IMD 2010 do not indicate significant changes in deprivation in the Tees Valley relative to elsewhere. The general pattern of deprivation locally and at borough level has changed little. For example 18% of Tees Valley LSOAs are in the national most deprived 5%, a figure that has changed little since the IMD 2004 or IMD 2007, and the LSOAs that are currently in this category are mostly those that were in it previously. It appears that several years of rising prosperity have not affected the broad pattern of deprivation with the Tees Valley. However, some changes can be detected. The most notable feature of the IMD 2010 results is the increase in relative deprivation within Darlington, especially in the areas in the centre and along North Road. This has sharply increased the proportion of Darlington’s LSOAs in the national most deprived 5%, lowered the borough’s ranks of Local Concentration and Average Score. Combined with many of Stockton-on-Tees’ ranks rising, on most measures the IMD now ranks Darlington as being more deprived than Stockton-on-Tees. Deprivation in East Cleveland continues to rise, both between 2004 and 2010, and 2007 and 2010. Elsewhere in Redcar & Cleveland, deprivation has risen in the South Bank and Grangetown areas, but fallen in many nearby areas, including Eston, Ormesby and Normanby. Deprivation has fallen in some areas of Middlesbrough, especially in the Kader, Acklam and Coulby Newham areas. However, much of the borough remains extremely deprived, with little improvement in deprivation being observed in the most deprived areas. All boroughs have seen an increase in the proportion of their LSOAs in the most affluent 20%. Since the proportions in the most deprived 10% have been constant, this suggests that recent general improvements in prosperity have not been shared by all, and that the gap between rich and poor within the Tees Valley has widened even further. 10 Further Information More detailed data and analysis can be obtained from TVU. All results from the IMD 2010, along with more detailed information on the methodology and indicators used, and a national summary report can be downloaded from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/research/indicesdeprivation/deprivation10/ Tim Bounds Tees Valley Unlimited July 2011

11

Annex 1

IMD 2010 Indicator List Income Deprivation Domain 1. Adults and children in Income Support families 2. Adults and children in income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance families 3. Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) families 4. Adults and children in Child Tax Credit families (who are not claiming Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance or Pension Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefits) is below 60% of the median before housing costs 5. Asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence support, accommodation support, or both Employment Deprivation Domain 6. Claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance (both contribution-based and income based) women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64, averaged over four quarters 7. Claimants of Incapacity Benefit women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64, averaged over four quarters 8. Claimants of Severe Disablement Allowance women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64, averaged over four quarters 9. Claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (those with a contribution-based element) women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64 10. Participants in New Deal for the 18-24s who are not in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, averaged over four quarters 11. Participants in New Deal for 25+ who are not in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, averaged over four quarters 12. Participants in New Deal for Lone Parents (after initial interview) aged 18and over, averaged over four quarters Health Deprivation and Disability Domain 13. Years of Potential Life Lost 14. Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio 15. Acute morbidity 16. Mood or anxiety disorders Education Skills and Training Deprivation Domain 17. Key Stage 2 attainment 18. Key Stage 3 attainment 19. Key Stage 4 attainment 20. Secondary school absence 21. Staying on in education post 16 22. Entry to higher education 23. Adult skills Barriers to Housing and Services Domain 24. Household overcrowding 25. Homelessness 26. Housing affordability 27. Road distance to a GP surgery 28. Road distance to a supermarket or convenience store 29. Road distance to a primary school 30. Road distance to a Post Office

12

Crime Domain 31. Violence 32. Burglary 33. Theft 34. Criminal damage Living Environment Domain 35. Housing in poor condition 36. Houses without central heating 37. Air quality 38. Road traffic accidents

13

Annex 2 Index of Multiple Deprivation

District Rankings Average of LSOA Scores is the population weighted average of the combined scores for the LSOAs in a local authority district. Average of LSOA Ranks is the population weighted average of the combined ranks for the LSOAs in a local authority district. Extent is the proportion of a local authority district’s population living in the most deprived LSOAs in the country. Effectively, this measures how much of a borough is very deprived. Local Concentration is the population weighted average of the ranks of a district’s most deprived LSOAs that contain exactly 10% of the local authority district’s population. This compares the very most deprived parts of each borough Income Scale is the number of people who are Income deprived from the Income domain (NB- Number not proportion). Employment Scale is the number of people who are Employment deprived from the Employment domain (NB- Number not proportion).

14

Annex 3A Estimated National Ward Ranks – Darlington

Rank 2010

Rank 2007

Rank 2004

Change 07-10

Change 04-10

Bank Top 391 531 636 -140 -245 Central 156 264 258 -108 -102 Cockerton East 3326 3642 3304 -316 22 Cockerton West 349 489 430 -140 -81 College 6497 6319 5650 178 847 Eastbourne 862 753 661 109 201 Faverdale 6083 5670 5195 413 888 Harrowgate Hill 4158 4233 3583 -75 575 Haughton East 922 809 919 113 3 Haughton North 3072 3195 3000 -123 72 Haughton West 2577 2674 2479 -97 98 Heighington and Coniscliffe 6132 5733 5152 399 980 Hummersknott 7407 7350 7366 57 41 Hurworth 4637 5078 4809 -441 -172 Lascelles 434 579 680 -145 -246 Lingfield 1437 1446 1478 -9 -41 Middleton St George 4757 4692 4087 65 670 Mowden 7153 7393 6993 -240 160 North Road 664 1073 979 -409 -315 Northgate 328 516 725 -188 -397 Park East 507 659 689 -152 -182 Park West 6362 6120 6131 242 231 Pierremont 2101 2491 2424 -390 -323 Sadberge and Whessoe 4244 4369 4530 -125 -286

Ranks out of 7934 English wards - a rank of 1 is the most deprived. A positive rank change figure represents a decrease in relative deprivation, whilst a negative figure indicates an increase in relative deprivation. Darlington ward rank changes are graphed in Graph 2A.

15

Annex 3B Estimated National Ward Ranks – Hartlepool

Rank 2010

Rank 2007

Rank 2004

Change 07-10

Change 04-10

Brus 164 222 165 -58 -1 Burn Valley 1074 1263 1371 -189 -297 Dyke House 44 63 89 -19 -45 Elwick 5437 4777 3479 660 1958 Fens 2735 2561 2028 174 707 Foggy Furze 910 947 750 -37 160 Grange 605 617 571 -12 34 Greatham 3088 3196 2138 -108 950 Hart 4931 3710 2405 1221 2526 Owton 163 152 92 11 71 Park 6412 6137 4542 275 1870 Rift House 774 697 463 77 311 Rossmere 868 982 613 -114 255 St. Hilda 166 153 145 13 21 Seaton 4119 3823 2763 296 1356 Stranton 56 49 55 7 1 Throston 2378 2288 1720 90 658

Ranks out of 7934 English wards - a rank of 1 is the most deprived. A positive rank change figure represents a decrease in relative deprivation, whilst a negative figure indicates an increase in relative deprivation. Hartlepool ward rank changes are graphed in Graph 2B.

16

Annex 3C Estimated National Ward Ranks – Middlesbrough

Rank 2010

Rank 2007

Rank 2004

Change 07-10

Change 04-10

Acklam 5486 4172 3225 1314 2261Ayresome 285 312 219 -27 66Beckfield 281 181 147 100 134Beechwood 67 65 64 2 3Brookfield 5074 4445 3765 629 1309Clairville 144 116 117 28 27Coulby Newham 1863 1676 1462 187 401Gresham 100 120 120 -20 -20Hemlington 341 290 206 51 135Kader 5341 4216 3393 1125 1948Ladgate 1239 1128 901 111 338Linthorpe 3301 2534 2574 767 727North Ormesby and Brambles Farm 41 54 59 -13 -18Marton 5283 4020 3928 1263 1355Marton West 6786 6055 5143 731 1643Middlehaven 6 6 6 0 0Nunthorpe 7337 7094 6474 243 863Pallister 65 60 56 5 9Park 779 770 825 9 -46Park End 71 75 68 -4 3Stainton and Thornton 1675 1562 1317 113 358Thorntree 15 22 17 -7 -2University 103 100 91 3 12

Ranks out of 7934 English wards - a rank of 1 is the most deprived. A positive rank change figure represents a decrease in relative deprivation, whilst a negative figure indicates an increase in relative deprivation. Middlesbrough ward rank changes are graphed in Graph 2C.

17

Annex 3D Estimated National Ward Ranks – Redcar & Cleveland

Rank 2010

Rank 2007

Rank 2004

Change 07-10

Change 04-10

Brotton 1398 1474 1582 -76 -184Coatham 312 265 362 47 -50Dormanstown 1191 1046 974 145 217Eston 725 648 564 77 161Grangetown 12 14 32 -2 -20Guisborough 1781 1740 1445 41 336Hutton 6496 5963 5804 533 692Kirkleatham 310 297 307 13 3Lockwood 721 742 1092 -21 -371Loftus 465 660 885 -195 -420Longbeck 5345 4517 4162 828 1183Newcomen 797 624 587 173 210Normanby 2615 2055 1723 560 892Ormesby 2206 1969 1770 237 436St Germain's 3230 2951 2671 279 559Saltburn 1872 2021 1802 -149 70Skelton 1818 1502 1504 316 314South Bank 147 167 152 -20 -5Teesville 1404 1301 1133 103 271West Dyke 5968 5256 4640 712 1328Westworth 4165 4092 3751 73 414Zetland 2431 2624 2593 -193 -162

Ranks out of 7934 English wards - a rank of 1 is the most deprived. A positive rank change figure represents a decrease in relative deprivation, whilst a negative figure indicates an increase in relative deprivation. Redcar & Cleveland ward rank changes are graphed in Graph 2D.

18

Annex 3E Estimated National Ward Ranks – Stockton on Tees

Rank 2010

Rank 2007

Rank 2004

Change 07-10

Change 04-10

Billingham Central 1336 1149 877 187 459 Billingham East 719 750 625 -31 94 Billingham North 5704 5210 4364 494 1340 Billingham South 1276 1451 1173 -175 103 Billingham West 6298 5847 5067 451 1231 Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree 3485 3921 3072 -436 413 Eaglescliffe 6829 6244 6008 585 821 Fairfield 5258 5609 4564 -351 694 Grangefield 5002 4628 3994 374 1008 Hardwick 352 536 364 -184 -12 Hartburn 7008 6898 5866 110 1142 Ingleby Barwick East 7567 7443 6936 124 631 Ingleby Barwick West 7428 7229 7034 199 394 Mandale and Victoria 563 497 448 66 115 Newtown 189 199 184 -10 5 Northern Parishes 6332 6048 5413 284 919 Norton North 919 911 718 8 201 Norton South 1068 1137 608 -69 460 Norton West 6228 5765 5008 463 1220 Parkfield and Oxbridge 589 664 555 -75 34 Roseworth 840 882 753 -42 87 Stainsby Hill 845 881 781 -36 64 Stockton Town Centre 17 25 24 -8 -7 Village 1507 1533 1363 -26 144 Western Parishes 4188 4099 3456 89 732 Yarm 6672 5989 5828 683 844

Ranks out of 7934 English wards - a rank of 1 is the most deprived. A positive rank change figure represents a decrease in relative deprivation, whilst a negative figure indicates an increase in relative deprivation. Stockton on Tees ward rank changes are graphed in Graph 2E.

19

Graph 2A A negative change illustrates increased relative deprivation

% Change in Ward Rank - Darlington

-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Bank TopCentral

Cockerton EastCockerton West

CollegeEastbourne

FaverdaleHarrow gate HillHaughton East

Haughton NorthHaughton WestHeighington and

HummersknottHurw orthLascellesLingfield

Middleton St GeorgeMow den

North RoadNorthgatePark East

Park WestPierremont

Sadberge and

2007-10

2004-10

Graph 2B A negative change illustrates increased relative deprivation

% Change in Ward Rank - Hartlepool

-120% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

BrusBurn ValleyDyke House

Elw ickFens

FoggyGrange

GreathamHart

Ow tonPark

Rift HouseRossmere

St. HildaSeaton

StrantonThroston

2007-10

2004-10

20

Graph 2C A negative change illustrates increased relative deprivation

% Change in Ward Rank - Middlesbrough

-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

AcklamAyresomeBeckfield

Beechw oodBrookfield

ClairvilleCoulby New ham

GreshamHemlington

KaderLadgate

LinthorpeNorth Ormesby

MartonMarton WestMiddlehaven

NunthorpePallister

ParkPark End

Stainton &ThorntonThorntreeUniversity

2007-10

2004-10

Graph 2D A negative change illustrates increased relative deprivation

% Change in Ward Rank - Redcar & Cleveland

-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

BrottonCoatham

Dormanstow nEston

Grangetow nGuisborough

HuttonKirkleathamLockw ood

LoftusLongbeck

New comenNormanbyOrmesby

St Germain'sSaltburnSkelton

South BankTeesville

West DykeWestw orth

Zetland

2007-10

2004-10

Graph 2E

21

A negative change illustrates increased relative deprivation

% Change in Ward Rank - Stockton on Tees

-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Billingham CentralBillingham East

Billingham NorthBillingham SouthBillingham West

Bishopsgarth& ElmEaglesclif fe

Fairf ieldGrangefield

Hardw ickHartburn

Ingleby Barw ick EastIngleby Barw ick WestMandale and Victoria

New tow nNorthern Parishes

Norton NorthNorton SouthNorton WestParkfield and

Rosew orthStainsby Hill

Stockton Tow n CentreVillage

Western ParishesYarm

2007-10

2004-10

22

Map1

23

Map 2

24

Map 3