You are in: Home › Statistics › Publications and Data › Occasional papers › Modelling Census Under-Enumeration › 1. Introduction › The Domains of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation ›

Occasional Paper

Modelling Census Under-Enumeration - A Logistic Regression Perspective

The Domains of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD)

The SIMD uses a process to produce a score for each of five “domains”, which are subsequently ranked across Scotland to give a relative picture of each dimension of deprivation. The SIMD domains are Income Deprivation, Employment Deprivation, Health Deprivation and Disability, Education, Skills and Training Deprivation and Geographical Access to Services.

The domains consist of indicators that are determined to be directly relevant to the purpose of each domain. Care was taken to prevent duplication by exploring inter-correlations of variables within (and outwith) the domains, eliminating those which largely reproduce the more effective measures of the relevant deprivation. Therefore, the indicators combine to give a direct measure of the particular aspect of deprivation defined by the domain.

There are other domains that could have been measured. The previous Scottish Area Deprivation Index, commissioned by the Scottish Office in 1998, included Housing Deprivation and Crime and Social Order domains. There is great need to measure housing deprivation (especially in the present economic climate of rising house prices) in order to help inform policy and target particular groups of people. However the varying approaches in the measurement of this domain – accessibility to housing, poor housing quality, overcrowding etc. – makes it difficult to quantify directly. Secondly there is currently no up-to-date data to address these issues at ward level.

Crime and Social Order are important elements in measuring deprivation at the small area level, and can be used for local initiatives. Unfortunately small area data on crime or social order for the whole of Scotland is currently not available (although it is expected to be available in future as a result of the new Crime and Victimisation Survey). Secondly there are some aspects of crime (e.g. city centre vandalism) that may be difficult to attribute to a specific geographical area. In most cases these crimes can legitimately be attributed to areas of those who live elsewhere.

It is important that attention is drawn to the domain of Access deprivation. It is a well known fact that poor geographical access to services is deemed to be an important aspect of multiple deprivation (Noble et al, 2000). However, this domain did not consider non-geographical issues - in particular language and cultural barriers. Secondly, car ownership (or more accurately, the lack of) was also not considered. A recent ONS report found that the proportion of people in households without a car who claimed to experience some difficulty in accessing services was nearly twice as great as those with a car (Ruston, 2002). Nevertheless, car ownership was omitted from the index because of its ambiguity – is the non-ownership of a vehicle (especially in cities) indicative of deprivation or a reflection of personal choice, a more environmentally friendly approach or good public transport?