Summary

Description

This dataset contains a summary measure of the Indices of Deprivation 2010 Crime domain at local authority district level. It puts the 326 Local Authority Districts into a rank order based the population weighted average rank of all LSOAs in the LAD. A rank of 1 is the most deprived. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The Indices are designed for small areas, but one way of summarising relative deprivation at local authority level is by calculating the average rank of the LSOAs within it. For the IMD and each domain, the summary measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each local authority district. For the purpose of calculation, LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a local authority district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. (For simplicity in summarising the domains, the same total population size is used for all domains.) Finally the LADs are ranked according to the average rank of the LSOAs, from 1 to 326 where 1 is the most deprived. The ‘Rank of average rank’ summary measure of for local authorities is also published for the IMD at: [http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1871689.xls](http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1871689.xls).

Summary

Description

This dataset contains the main ranking for the Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2010. This dataset puts the 32,482 LSOAs into a rank order based on their 2010 IMD score. A rank of 1 is the most deprived. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

Ranking of LSOAs according to their score in the Barriers to Housing and Services domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

This dataset contains the scores underlying the Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2007. These figures combine values of many indicators into a single score that indicates the overall level of deprivation in each LSOA. A high number indicates a high level of deprivation. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2007 indices are for the year 2005. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2007) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2007 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100410180038/http://communities.gov.uk/communities/neighbourhoodrenewal/deprivation/deprivation07/). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the [Guidance document](http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100410180038/http://communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/doc/615986.doc). The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

Score for each LSOA in the Income Deprivation domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

Expenditure per head on the Fire and Rescue Service #### How the figure is calculated: England total net current expenditure on the Fire and Rescue Service, divided by the mid-year population estimate for England. #### Why is this indicator in the business plan? This demonstrates the cost per head of providing the Fire and Rescue Service and will indicate over time whether the cost is going up or down. This indicator is of total revenue expenditure because the funding from the Department cannot be disaggregated from the total Fire and Rescue funding, which also includes locally raised funds, such as council tax. #### How often is it updated? Annually. A provisional figure will initially be released followed by a revised final outturn figure approximately three months later. #### Where does the data come from? The indicator is derived from two sources: The total expenditure figure is sourced from revenue summary returns to DCLG. Published figures are at [https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing). The ONS population estimates that are used to derive a per head estimate are available at [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population). #### What area does the headline figure cover? England. #### Are further breakdowns of the data available? Yes, can be split by Fire and Rescue Authority. #### What does a change in this indicator show? A decreasing figure will indicate that expenditure on the Fire and Rescue Service is falling, per head of population. For 2011-12, total expenditure also fell, while the population of England rose. #### Time Lag Provisional figures published within five months of end of the reporting period, with final figures being published within eight months of end of the reporting period. #### Next available update August 2014 - Provisional figure for 2013-14 #### Type of Data National Statistics. #### Robustness and data limitations The expenditure figures are subjected to rigorous pre-defined validation tests both within the relevant form itself, while the form is being completed by the authority, and also as the data are received and stored. Population figures are the definitive mid-year estimates published by ONS. #### Links to Further Information [https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing) #### Contact Details [CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk](mailto:CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk)

Summary

Description

Score for each LSOA in the Barriers to Housing and Services domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

This is the Total New Homes Bonus grant payable for a financial year, divided by number of dwellings rewarded. Calculations are available separately for shire areas, metropolitan areas and London. #### How the figure is calculated: For 2011-12: average grant payable in areas equals the total payment for increase in effective stock divided by the increase in the number of dwellings comprising the effective stock. Where the effective stock is defined as dwellings on the valuation list less recent demolitions less long-term empty homes. Growth in the effective stock is measured from October to October. #### Why is this indicator in the business plan? It is a measure of the financial reward for housing growth provided through the New Homes Bonus. This is a key DCLG policy. #### How often is it updated? Annually #### Where does the data come from? Council Tax Base returns. Published figures are available [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/council-taxbase-statistics). #### What area does the headline figure cover? England #### Are further breakdowns of the data available? Yes, can be split by Housing Authority area. #### What does a change in this indicator show? An increase in the average NHB grant payable may reflect an increase (i) in the proportion of homes receiving an affordable homes premium, (ii) a shift in distribution of homes awarded NHB at higher tax bands or (iii) an increase in the average national level of council tax for band D property (11 pence between 11/12 and 12/13). #### Time Lag Figures are published in advance of the financial year: initial figures in December and final figures in the February. #### Next available update Spring 2013 #### Type of Data Official Statistics #### Robustness and data limitations The data used in calculating the New Homes Bonus are also used in calculating each local authority's Council Tax Base for Formula Grant purposes so this effectively ensures a 100% response rate before the release is compiled. Figures are subjected to rigorous pre-defined validation tests both within the form itself, while the form is being completed by the authority, and also in DCLG when the data are received and stored. #### Links to Further Information [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-homes-bonus-final-scheme-design--2](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-homes-bonus-final-scheme-design--2) #### Contact Details [CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk](mailto:CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk)

Summary

Description

Average (mean) rating for 'Happy Yesterday' by LSOA in the First ONS Annual Experimental Subjective Wellbeing survey, April 2011 - March 2012 The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has estimated the expected wellbeing of residents at Lower-layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level. The purpose is to illustrate the likely degree of variation between neighbourhoods. These are modelled estimates for local areas based on national findings from the ONS Annual Population Survey 2011-2012. They are not the actual survey responses of people living in those areas [1]. As such, DCLG encourage local areas to test these expected findings against their own local knowledge and data. DCLG used CACI’s ACORN geo-demographic segmentation to estimate the likely wellbeing characteristics of each neighbourhood. Analysis of the APS provided a national profile of wellbeing by ACORN Type, with estimates of average subjective wellbeing and low subjective wellbeing for each of the 56 Types. The national profile was then applied to localities, to reflect their composition according to ACORN Type [2]. The method presumes the national profile of wellbeing for the ACORN types is broadly the same in each local authority. For all of the subjective wellbeing measures, DCLG tested this assumption broadly held across the nine regions. As a result, DCLG made a minimal number of adjustments to the profiles for life satisfaction, worthwhile, and happy yesterday, and determined that the method was not robust for modelling anxiety [3]. Feedback on the neighbourhood estimates and requests for further details of the methodology can sent to [wellbeing@communities.gsi.gov.uk](mailto:wellbeing@communities.gsi.gov.uk). In October, DCLG will be producing wellbeing profiles to enable users to apply the same methodology using geo-demographic classifications: Experian’s MOSAIC and ONS’s Output Area Classification (OAC). [1] This is because sample sizes from the APS do not permit reliable estimates of subjective wellbeing below the 90 unitary authorities and counties reported in the [First ONS Annual Experimental Subjective Well-being Results](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-subjective-wellbeing-in-the-uk/first-annual-ons-experimental-subjective-well-being-results/first-ons-annual-experimental-subjective-well-being-results.html). [2] ACORN is a segmentation based on shared characteristics of people’s life-stage, income, profession and housing, as well as characteristics of places including whether they are [urban, suburban or rural](http://www.caci.co.uk/acorn-classification.aspx). Each respondent on the APS had been classified into one ACORN Type, based on the full postcode in which they live – approximately 16 addresses.) ACORN provided estimates of the population in each ACORN Type in each LSOA and local authority district. [3] These adjustments were made only where there was reliable evidence (based on samples of more than 100 respondents) from APS that the national wellbeing ACORN profile was substantially different from the regional one, and where the implications for neighbourhood maps would be highly geographically clustered.

Summary

Description

Ranking of LSOAs according to their score in the Employment Deprivation domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

Ranking of LSOAs according to their score in the Income Deprivation domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

This indicator reports the percentage of local authorities who have begun to identify and work with troubled families in their area as part of DCLG's programme. #### How the figure is calculated: The figure is a percentage of all 152 upper and single tier local authorities in England who have begun work in this area. #### Why is this indicator in the business plan? It is a demonstration of the proportion of local governments commitment to be part of the troubled families programme. Getting all upper and single tier local authorities involved is a key initial target. Data evaluating the success of the programme will be available at a later date. #### How often is it updated? Data is updated Annually. #### Where does the data come from? DCLG Troubled Families Programme. #### What area does the headline figure cover? England #### Are further breakdowns of the data available? By local authority. #### What does a change in this indicator show? This would show the change in Local Authorities working with the Troubled Families Programme. Having all upper and single tier authorities committed to work with the troubled families programme is seen as a key first step in implementing the programme. #### Time Lag - #### Type of Data Management Information #### Robustness and data limitations - #### Links to Further Information [https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-troubled-families-turn-their-lives-around](https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-troubled-families-turn-their-lives-around) #### Contact Details [CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk](mailto:CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk)

Summary

Description

Total new homes bonus grant payable per year

Summary

Description

Score for each LSOA in the Education, Skills and Training Deprivation domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

This dataset describes the 'Lower layer Super Output Areas' used by the Office for National Statistics for many of its statistical outputs. This dataset has been converted from a download of geography data from the Office for National Statistics [Neighbourhood Statistics](http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/) website. It provides information about Lower layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs), their location and the Local Authority District to which they belong. Where a LSOA intersects with a parish, the dataset includes a link from LSOA to parish. Because LSOA and parish boundaries do not align, it is possible for an LSOA to intersect with several parishes. Note that parishes only exist in some parts of England, therefore there are many LSOAs with no link to a parish.

Summary

Description

Score for each LSOA in the Living Environment Deprivation domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

Ranking of LSOAs according to their score in the Health Deprivation and Disability domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

Identifiers for local authorities of various types in England, with links to other coding schemes and links to the areas the authorities are responsible for. Includes unitary authorities, district councils, London Borough councils, metropolitan district councils, county councils. Also police, fire, waste, transport and park authorities. Note that this dataset refers to the councils as organisations, distinct from the geographical areas that they are responsible for.

Summary

Description

Score for each LSOA in the Health Deprivation and Disability domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

Affordable rent dwellings are the principal product of the Homes and Communities Agency's 2011-15 Affordable Homes Programme. The indicator shows the average agreed grant for each affordable rent dwelling funded by the HCA as stated within the original agreed offer. #### How the figure is calculated: The figure is calculated as the total grant agreed by the HCA for affordable rent dwellings divided by the number of HCA Affordable Rent dwellings. The start date is as of 1 October 2011 under the agreed offers. #### Why is this indicator in the business plan? The payment per dwelling represents the capital cost to Government of the supply of new affordable rent homes and will indicate the level of consistency with the rate of funding agreed with providers at the onset of the 2011-15 Programme. #### How often is it updated Data is updated quarterly. #### Where does the data come from? The Homes and Communities Agency collect this information through its Investment Management System. #### What area does the headline figure cover? England except for the area covered by the Greater London Authority (GLA). #### Are further breakdowns of the data available? The HCA publish figures by HCA operating area. #### What does a change in this indicator show? The payment per dwelling should be consistent with the rate of funding agreed with providers at the onset of the 2011-15 Programme. #### Time Lag Approximately 8 weeks after end of 3-month period, broadly in line with HCA National Housing Statistics publication. #### Next available update The position as at end of December 2013 to be published in March 2014. #### Type of Data Management Information #### Robustness and data limitations The indicator applies to Affordable Rent dwellings under the 2011-2015 Affordable Homes Programme. It excludes committed units from the previous programme. Based on provider offers and following negotiation and agreement of a framework contract, a rate for new HCA funding per Affordable Rent unit is agreed for each provider, in the majority of cases is paid 50% at start on site and 50% on completion (on a results basis). A provider's agreed rate of funding for each home completed will apply for the duration of the contract where delivery is largely in line with the assumptions in the initial framework contract. The HCA Investment Management System contains information provided by investment partners and so viewed as the most reliable source of data. From April 2012, the Mayor of London has had oversight of strategic housing, regeneration and economic development in London. This indicator refers only to grant payments by the HCA. The figure will include a small element of grant payments for social rent dwellings and a small proportion of acquisitions. #### Links to Further Information [http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/affordable-homes](http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/affordable-homes) #### Contact Details [CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk](mailto:CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk)

Summary

Description

This indicator is the reported local authority income from central government grants as a percentage of Revenue Expenditure, using the relevant lines from Revenue Summary returns. #### How the figure is calculated: For each major class of local authority (e.g. metropolitan districts), total amount of grant received by local authorities from central government divided by total local authority Revenue Expenditure, multiplied by 100%. E.g. for metropolitan districts for 2012-13: government grants (£15.012bn) divided by Revenue Expenditure (£19.045bn), multiplied by 100, equals 78.8%. These statistics can be calculated using the published local level detail relating to the Revenue Outturn Summary form 2012-13. Revenue expenditure is used to describe expenditure funded from Aggregate External Finance (AEF), council tax and authorities reserves. It is equal to new current expenditure plus capital financing costs and a few minor adjustments, but excluding expenditure funded by grants outside AEF and income from interest receipts. Revenue expenditure is a familiar and widely used measure of expenditure; it is used particularly in the context of funding local government expenditure. Government grants include 'Revenue Grants inside Aggregate External Finance', 'Local Services Support Grant', 'General GLA Grant' and 'Formula Grant', which includes 'Revenue Support Grant', 'Police Grant' and 'Redistributed non-domestic rates'. #### Why is this indicator in the business plan? It is a demonstration of the proportion of local government expenditure accounted for by grants from central government (from DCLG and other departments). #### How often is it updated? Annually #### Where does the data come from? Revenue Summary returns to DCLG. Published figures are available [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing). #### What area does the headline figure cover? England #### Are further breakdowns of the data available? By local authority #### What does a change in this indicator show? A larger percentage shows that local authorities receive a larger proportion of their revenue expenditure through central government grants, and a lower percentage implies that local authorities receive a smaller proportion of their revenue expenditure through central government grants. #### Time Lag Provisional figures published within five months of end of the reporting period, with final figures being published within eight months of end of the reporting period. #### Next available update September 2015. #### Type of Data National Statistics #### Robustness and data limitations The expenditure figures are subjected to rigorous pre-defined validation tests both within the relevant form itself, while the form is being completed by the authority, and also as the data are received and stored. #### Links to Further Information [https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing) #### Contact Details [CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk](mailto:CorporatePerformance@communities.gsi.gov.uk)

Summary

Description

Ranking of LSOAs according to their score in the Living Environment Deprivation domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

Score for each LSOA in the Employment Deprivation domain. The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008. The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much. This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010). The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report '[The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010-technical-report)'. The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Summary

Description

This dataset shows net additional dwellings by local authority district, England 2004-05 to 2012-13. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. 0 represents 0-4, the dwelling counts from the 2011 Census have been used to revise the net supply estimates from 2004-05 to 2010-11. The 2011/12 and 2012/13 figures are provisional and subject to scheduled revisions pending the release of future cesnsus dwelling stock data. Net additions measures the absolute change in dwelling stock between 1 April and 31 March of the following year. The absolute change in the dwelling stock is the number of new house building completions plus any gains or losses through conversions, demolitions and changes of use (also referred to as Net supply of housing). Sources Housing Flows Reconciliation (HFR), the Greater London Authority and Regional Assembly joint returns. From 2000-01 to 2003-04, all local authorities submitted data to CLG through the Housing Flows Reconciliation (HFR) form. Following the abolition of the Regional Planning Bodies in 2010, local authorities in all regions except London have returned to submitting data via the HFR from 2009-10. Data for London are supplied by the GLA. Between 2004-05 and 2008-09 CLG worked jointly with Regional Planning bodies in the south and midlands on joint data returns in an attempt to ensure consistency between the net housing supply figures reported in regional Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) and those published by central government. This data was derived from Table 122, available for download as an [Excel spreadsheet](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11808/255434/LiveTable_122.xls). For fuller information please see the 'Net supply of housing in England,: 2012 to 2013' statistical release available in [PDF format](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255431/Net_Supply_of_Housing_England__2012-13.pdf).

Summary

Description

Average (mean) rating for 'Life Satisfaction' by LSOA in the First ONS Annual Experimental Subjective Wellbeing survey, April 2011 - March 2012 The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has estimated the expected wellbeing of residents at Lower-layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level. The purpose is to illustrate the likely degree of variation between neighbourhoods. These are modelled estimates for local areas based on national findings from the ONS Annual Population Survey 2011-2012. They are not the actual survey responses of people living in those areas [1]. As such, DCLG encourage local areas to test these expected findings against their own local knowledge and data. DCLG used CACI’s ACORN geo-demographic segmentation to estimate the likely wellbeing characteristics of each neighbourhood. Analysis of the APS provided a national profile of wellbeing by ACORN Type, with estimates of average subjective wellbeing and low subjective wellbeing for each of the 56 Types. The national profile was then applied to localities, to reflect their composition according to ACORN Type [2]. The method presumes the national profile of wellbeing for the ACORN types is broadly the same in each local authority. For all of the subjective wellbeing measures, DCLG tested this assumption broadly held across the nine regions. As a result, DCLG made a minimal number of adjustments to the profiles for life satisfaction, worthwhile, and happy yesterday, and determined that the method was not robust for modelling anxiety [3]. Feedback on the neighbourhood estimates and requests for further details of the methodology can sent to [wellbeing@communities.gsi.gov.uk](mailto:wellbeing@communities.gsi.gov.uk). In October, DCLG will be producing wellbeing profiles to enable users to apply the same methodology using geo-demographic classifications: Experian’s MOSAIC and ONS’s Output Area Classification (OAC). [1] This is because sample sizes from the APS do not permit reliable estimates of subjective wellbeing below the 90 unitary authorities and counties reported in the [First ONS Annual Experimental Subjective Well-being Results](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-subjective-wellbeing-in-the-uk/first-annual-ons-experimental-subjective-well-being-results/first-ons-annual-experimental-subjective-well-being-results.html). [2] ACORN is a segmentation based on shared characteristics of people’s life-stage, income, profession and housing, as well as characteristics of places including whether they are [urban, suburban or rural](http://www.caci.co.uk/acorn-classification.aspx). Each respondent on the APS had been classified into one ACORN Type, based on the full postcode in which they live – approximately 16 addresses.) ACORN provided estimates of the population in each ACORN Type in each LSOA and local authority district. [3] These adjustments were made only where there was reliable evidence (based on samples of more than 100 respondents) from APS that the national wellbeing ACORN profile was substantially different from the regional one, and where the implications for neighbourhood maps would be highly geographically clustered.