Should disadvantage be reduced to a single number?

Before diving into the data, it might be useful to review the different types of deprivation recognised by the government – specifically, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Their most general deprivation indicator is the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which combines the following seven components (with weightings in brackets):

• Income (22.5%): The proportion of people experiencing deprivation relating to low income. There are also separate sub-indicators for income deprivation affecting children (IDACI) and that affecting older people (IDAOPI). The IDACI is similar to the FSM measure used in schools, but also includes children of pre-school age.
• Employment (22.5%): The proportion of working-age people involuntarily excluded from the labour market.
• Education (13.5%): The lack of attainment and skills in the local population.
• Health (13.5%): The risk of premature death and impaired quality of life through poor physical or mental health.
• Crime (9.3%): The risk of personal and material victimisation.
• Housing (9.3%): The physical and financial accessibility of housing and local services.
• Environment (9.3%): The quality of the indoor and outdoor local environment.

In addition, the Office for Students creates an indicator called POLAR4, which is a measure of the higher-education participation rate among young people. It is not a component of the IMD, and it is a measure of advantage rather than disadvantage (in the sense that high values are good), but is also an interesting metric, so we include it here.