1. SIMD and the flaws of area- based socio-economic profiles Paul Lambert, University of Stirling Presentation to the Scottish Civil Society Data Partnership Project (S-CSDP), Webinar 5 on ‘Dealing with data: Taking advantage of data resources about regions and area’ www.thinkdata.org.ukwww.thinkdata.org.uk, 31 Mar 2016

2. What is SIMD? (from http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/SIMD )http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/SIMD S-CSDP, 31 Mar 20162 “The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation identifies small area concentrations of multiple deprivation across all of Scotland in a consistent way. It allows effective targeting of policies and funding where the aim is to wholly or partly tackle or take account of area concentrations of multiple deprivation.” SIMD versions in 2012, 2009, 2006, 2004 Ranks of relative deprivation at the data zone level SIMD 2012 ranks from 1 (most deprived) to 6505 (least deprived) Commonly converted to quintiles, deciles, or binary summary tools e.g. in most deprived 15% Deprivation indicators take account of: income (28%), employment (28%), health (14%), education (14%), geographic access (9%), crime (5%), housing (2%) http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/SIMD /BackgroundMethodology http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/SIMD /BackgroundMethodology

3. What else is SIMD? Many other measures at the individual or household level… – See ‘webinar 3’ on standard measures and variables & their scientific attractions [Bulmer et al. 2010]; [Shaw et al. 2007] – Other sensible ways of measuring position in the structure of social inequality include using occupation, education, tenure, wealth, assets, consumption patterns, and plenty more… S-CSDP, 31 Mar 20163 Usefully seen as one of a number of different ways that social inequalities can be represented Several other area-based measures and a general drift in social science towards area-based socio-economic profiles [e.g. Dorling 2013; www.viewsoftheworld.net ]www.viewsoftheworld.net

4. Strengths and weaknesses of SIMD? 1)Positive features 2)A few specific and operational flaws 3)Wider scientific challenges S-CSDP, 31 Mar 20164 High quality, well-documented, preparatory work Downloadable data resource Good predictor of individual behaviours Plausible policy-oriented evidence tool Some survey datasets already linked to SIMD A rank, not a score, without a simple method of aggregation over areas Not suited for comparisons with rest of UK Data linkage may not be easy (or available at all)

5. …Why SIMD raises wider scientific challenges… S-CSDP, 31 Mar 20165 a)Not everyone in an area is the same… – Variations esp. by working activities, family status, age and income – Area based policies may misdirect resources – Areal boundaries are different in different situations (e.g. health services, education, transport, crime, travel-to-work areas) – Cultural stereotyping of area-based profiles? b)Areas aren’t good units for analytical research

6. …Why SIMD raises wider scientific challenges, ctd… a)Not everyone in an area is the same… b)Areas aren’t good units for analytical research – Cartographies encourage ‘bivariate’ thinking, when most social mechanisms are ‘multivariate’ – SIMD is a combined index, but different aspects of people’s lives are usefully separated – Can introduce disclosure risks in geographical data – Areas can mask individuals’ temporal changes – Aggregating over areas is technically difficult; with SIMD, users adopt simplifying strategies (e.g. % live in a 15% most deprived ward) S-CSDP, 31 Mar 20166

7. Example: Errors when area-based profiles get things wrong… S-CSDP, 31 Mar 20167 Predicting volunteering with SHS 2012… Worse errors from this model are those with (a) high prob. but not volunteering, and (b) those with low prob. who do volunteer (a)includes: 73% women, 44% most advantaged jobs, twice as likely to cite ‘lack of time’ as reason than other non-vol.s (b)Includes: 61% men, 54% not in work, average age, 4 times less likely to be married than other vols

8. Summary: Area level socio-economic classifications like SIMD are handy tools with some appealing properties, but it is also worth being a little wary… 1)Encourage a bivariate, descriptive approach 2)Neglect (or drift away from) other compelling ways of understanding social processes 3)Tend to neglect/downplay some important individual level influences upon social behaviours and experience. When studying third sector activity or engagement, especially with regard to working time, type of occupation, and family status S-CSDP, 31 Mar 20168 References cited Bulmer, M., Gibbs, J., & Hyman, L. (Eds.). (2010). Social Measurement through Social Surveys: An Applied Approach. Aldershot: Ashgate. Dorling, D. (2013). The Population of the UK, 2nd Edition. London: Sage. Shaw, M., Galobardes, B., Lawlor, D. A., Lynch, J., Wheeler, B., & Davey Smith, G. (2007). The Handbook of Inequality and Socioeconomic Position: Concepts and Measures. Bristol: Policy Press.