Department of Health & Social Care
Using the English indices of deprivation
Introduction
The English indices of deprivation is a set of measures of relative deprivation published periodically by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (or its predecessors). The dataset includes 7 measures of different domains of deprivation, and an overall Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) which combines the 7 domains.
Although many other measures of deprivation are available, the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is the primary measure used within OHID. IMD is a composite measure combining information from each of the domains within the English Indices of Deprivation. It is the official measure of relative deprivation for small areas in England. Its use with health data is sometimes criticised, because it includes a health domain. This is, however, a small component of the index. Some have proposed using the income domain alone as an alternative, but this is based just on means-tested benefits, so is a very narrow definition of deprivation.
To measure the effect of deprivation on a particular indicator, we can assign a deprivation score, or rank, to areas using the IMD. We often do this at the smallest geography for which the indices are available, lower layer super output areas (LSOAs). Areas with similar levels of deprivation are frequently grouped together to form deprivation deciles or quintiles, and we often wish to measure how the extent of inequality between these groups has changed over time.
There have been 6 versions of the English indices of deprivation, released between 2000 and 2019 (the next version is planned to be published late in 2025), so any analysis needs to begin by choosing which is the most appropriate to use. This guidance informs the selection of a version, or versions, of the indices to use for analysis either for a particular time period or over time. Its aim is to improve consistency between outputs produced both within OHID and by other organisations producing health-related indicators using the indices of deprivation.
For guidance on how to group individual areas into categories, such as quintiles or deciles, based on their deprivation score, see the assigning deprivation categories page.
Geographical boundaries
IMD 2010 was originally published based on 2001 LSOA boundaries. OHID have produced a set of IMD 2010 figures adjusted to 2011 LSOA boundaries for use in indicator production, but these have not been published.
IMD 2015 and 2019 were originally published based on 2011 LSOA boundaries. OHID have produced a set of IMD 2015 and 2019 figures adjusted to 2021 LSOA boundaries (xlsx).
The assigning deprivation categories page gives guidance on how to group individual areas into categories such as deprivation quintiles or deciles.
Guidance for measuring trends in inequality by deprivation
Use older versions of the indices with caution
Using different measures of deprivation based on the time period being examined introduces the possibility that any changes observed in the indicator are due to differences in the way deprivation is measured.
The versions from 2010, 2015 and 2019 are not identical in their construction but the differences between them are small so they can be compared over time. The statistical release for the 2019 indices notes that “The Index of Deprivation 2019 has been produced using the same approach, structure and methodology for the Index of Deprivation 2015 and previous releases. Keeping a consistent methodology in this way does allow relative rankings between iterations to be compared over time.”
Older versions of the indices (prior to 2010) should be used with caution since there are differences in the methods and indicators used in their construction, meaning they are not comparable with more recent versions.
Use the same version of the indices within aggregated time periods
When analysis is produced for aggregated time periods, we could assign data to deprivation categories based on each single year, then aggregated to multi-year time periods, potentially using the most appropriate version of the indices for each single year. However, doing this is potentially problematic for users of the data, such as local authorities who may need to identify and target the LSOAs in a particular quintile or decile.
It is therefore recommended to aggregate data into the multi-year time period first, then assign deprivation categories using a single version of the indices.
We also need to consider boundary changes, particularly for groups of local authorities. Don’t present trends where there have been boundary changes. For example, don’t present a trend of deciles based on pre-April 2019 boundaries for one time period with deciles based on April 2023 boundaries for another.
Use the version of the indices which most closely aligns with the time period of the data
It is possible to measure trends in deprivation-based inequality using a single version of the indices to define deprivation for the whole time period being looked at. This has the advantage of defining deprivation in a consistent way, which means that any observed change in trend is not the result purely of a change in definition.
Doing this, however, is problematic in local areas where there have been significant changes in levels of deprivation within the area over time. For example, an apparent narrowing of inequality over time between deprivation quintiles, based on a single version of the indices, could reflect a genuine narrowing of inequality. It could, however, also mean that the quintiles are no longer made up of similarly deprived LSOAs, that is, the deprivation quintiles have become less homogenous over time, thereby masking inequality between more and less deprived areas. An alternative is to measure the inequality in each time period using the version of the deprivation indices which most closely aligns with the time period of the data. This reduces this issue and means that the indicator more accurately reflects inequality within each area at a given time period.
Consider the time period of data used to construct the version of the indices
The versions of the indices are named according to the year in which they were published, but they are not based on data for that year.
Since each version of the indices is made up of around 40 indicators, there is no single time period on which each version is based, as data availability for each indicator differs. This means that it is less clear when each version should be used.
Take into account the time period of data used to construct each of the indices when considering which version to use for trend analysis. Table 1 sets out the versions available since 2004, with the time periods on which the majority of the data are based.
The 2000 version of the indices is also available from the National Archives. This version was only published at electoral ward level, not for LSOAs.
Recommended approach
The principles set out above can be applied to any deprivation-based groups, for example those based on groups of LSOAs, and those based on groups of local authorities.
Table 2 provides guidance on which version of the indices should be used for each time period, based on the principles above. It assumes that each version of the indices will be mostly based on data from two years before the year of its release.
| 5-year calendar aggregate | 3-year calendar aggregate | Single calendar year | Single financial year ending | Recommended version of the indices |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 to 2005 | 2001 to 2003 | 2001 | 2002 | 2010 |
| 2002 to 2006 | 2002 to 2004 | 2002 | 2003 | 2010 |
| 2003 to 2007 | 2003 to 2005 | 2003 | 2004 | 2010 |
| 2004 to 2008 | 2004 to 2006 | 2004 | 2005 | 2010 |
| 2005 to 2009 | 2005 to 2007 | 2005 | 2006 | 2010 |
| 2006 to 2010 | 2006 to 2008 | 2006 | 2007 | 2010 |
| 2007 to 2011 | 2007 to 2009 | 2007 | 2008 | 2010 |
| 2008 to 2012 | 2008 to 2010 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
| 2009 to 2013 | 2009 to 2011 | 2009 | 2010 | 2010 |
| 2010 to 2014 | 2010 to 2012 | 2010 | 2011 | 2010 |
| 2011 to 2015 | 2011 to 2013 | 2011 | 2012 | 2015 |
| 2012 to 2016 | 2012 to 2014 | 2012 | 2013 | 2015 |
| 2013 to 2017 | 2013 to 2015 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
| 2014 to 2018 | 2014 to 2016 | 2014 | 2015 | 2015 |
| 2015 to 2019 | 2015 to 2017 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 |
| 2016 to 2020 | 2016 to 2018 | 2016 | 2017 | 2019 |
| 2017 to 2021 | 2017 to 2019 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
| 2018 to 2022 | 2018 to 2020 | 2018 | 2019 | 2019 |
| 2019 to 2023 | 2019 to 2021 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 |
| 2020 to 2024 | 2020 to 2022 | 2020 | 2021 | 2019 |
| 2021 to 2025 | 2021 to 2023 | 2021 | 2022 | 2019 |
| 2022 to 2026 | 2022 to 2024 | 2022 | 2023 | 2019 |
| 2023 to 2027 | 2023 to 2025 | 2023 | 2024 | 2019 |
| 2024 to 2028 | 2024 to 2026 | 2024 | 2025 | 2019 |
We will update Table 2 to include IMD 2025 when more information is available about its construction. We do not yet have a recommendation as to which time periods it should be used with.
Please note that IMD 2010 scores at LSOA 2021 configuration are not available (see geographical boundaries). Therefore, it is not possible to calculate IMD trends based on grouping LSOA 2021 areas for time points using data prior to calendar year 2011. This is not an issue for higher geographies (such as Lower Tier Local authority at 2023 configuration), which can be built from both LSOA 2011 and LSOA 2021, and for whom an IMD 2010 score is available.
Page last updated: August 2025