The merits of area and individual-based indicators in widening participation work continue to be keenly debated, including on the HEPI website (for example, in this piece by Sasha Roseneil).
In this blog, we illustrate that it is those living in the most deprived areas that are least likely to be awarded a first or upper second class degree. This is true irrespective of their family background. Based on our findings, we cannot therefore rule out that a ‘neighbourhood effect’ exists, whereby the locality leads to individuals being unable to reach their full potential.
The main conclusion from this examination is that area-based measures may have greater value in supporting widening participation activity than currently believed. Indeed, with rising demand for data at individual-level, these results suggest placing greater reliance on individual-based indicators may actually reduce the ability of the sector to provide equal opportunity for all.
One of the limitations often noted about area-based measures is that they do not necessarily inform us of the household circumstances of an individual. That is, someone who is classified as living in a deprived neighbourhood may, for example, be part of a family with a large overall income or where both parents are highly qualified. The concern therefore is that such a student may not require the additional help (such as extra support in their studies) that is provided through widening participation activity determined on the basis of an area-based measure. On the other hand, there could be an individual who is part of a poorer household, but misses out on assistance as a result of residing in a less deprived area. The possible consequence of all of this is that policy is ineffectively targeted, thereby preventing the sector from providing equal opportunity for all.
