• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Pobal hp deprivation index   oecd leed 2013
 

Pobal hp deprivation index oecd leed 2013

on

  • 284 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
284
Views on SlideShare
219
Embed Views
65

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 65

http://www.dublinked.ie 47
http://www.dublinked.com 18

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Pobal hp deprivation index   oecd leed 2013 Pobal hp deprivation index oecd leed 2013 Presentation Transcript

    • Trutz Haase THE POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX Workshop G: Data for Policy Design and Impact Assessment OECD LEED Conference on Implementing Change: A New Local Agenda for Jobs and Growth, Dublin - Kilkenny, 26-27 March 2013
    • THE 2011 POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX The purpose of this presentation is • to provide an overview of the conceptual components which underlie the Pobal HP Deprivation Index, • to provide an overview of the changes in absolute and relative deprivation between 1991 and 2011, and • to draw out the Index’ relevance for policy design and impact assessment.
    •  Relative Poverty “People are living in poverty if their income and resources (material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by Irish society generally.” (Government of Ireland, NAPS, 1997)  Relative Deprivation “The fundamental implication of the term deprivation is of an absence – of essential or desirable attributes, possessions and opportunities which are considered no more than the minimum by that society.” (Coombes et al., DoE – UK, 1995) A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF POVERTY
    •  EFA is essentially an exploratory technique; .i.e. data-driven  all variables load on all factors  the structure matrix is the (accidental) outcome of the variables available  EFA cannot be used to compare outcomes over time V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 F1 F2  Ordinary Factor Analysis (EFA) reduces variables to a smaller number of underlying Dimensions or Factors TRADITIONAL APPROACH: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA)
    •  CFA requires a strong theoretical justification before the model is specified  the researcher decides which of the observed variables are to be associated with which of the latent constructs  variables are conceptualised as the imperfect manifestations of the latent concepts  CFA model allows the comparison of outcomes over time  CFA facilitates the objective evaluation of the quality of the model through fit statistics V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 L1 L2  Confirmatory Factor Analysis also reduces observations to the underlying Factors, however 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEW APPROACH: CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA)
    •  Demographic Decline (predominantly rural)  population loss and the social and demographic effects of emigration (age dependency, low education of adult population)  Social Class Deprivation (applying in rural and urban areas)  social class composition, education, housing quality  Labour Market Deprivation (predominantly urban)  unemployment, lone parents, low skills base THE UNDERLYING DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE
    • Age Dependency Rate1 PopulationChange 2 PrimaryEducationonly3 Third Level Education4 ProfessionalClasses 5 Persons per Room 6 Lone Parents 7 Semi- and UnskilledClasses 8 Male UnemploymentRate9 Female UnemploymentRate10 Demographic Growth Social Class Composition Labour Market Situation THE BASIC MODEL OF THE SA-LEVEL POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX
    • most disadvantaged most affluent marginally below the average marginally above the average disadvantaged affluent very disadvantaged very affluent extremely disadvantaged extremely affluent MAPPING DEPRIVATION
    • ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 1991 HP Deprivation Index ED 1991 absolute Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (53) 20 to 30 (79) 10 to 20 (252) 0 to 10 (1184) -10 to 0 (1431) -20 to -10 (360) -30 to -20 (49)
    • ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 1996 HP Deprivation Index ED 1996 absolute Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (52) 20 to 30 (133) 10 to 20 (562) 0 to 10 (1625) -10 to 0 (875) -20 to -10 (151) -30 to -20 (10)
    • ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2002 HP Deprivation Index ED 2002 absolute Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (77) 20 to 30 (314) 10 to 20 (1021) 0 to 10 (1440) -10 to 0 (436) -20 to -10 (103) -30 to -20 (16) -50 to -30 (1)
    • ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2006 HP Deprivation Index ED 2006 absolute Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (55) 20 to 30 (314) 10 to 20 (1201) 0 to 10 (1385) -10 to 0 (341) -20 to -10 (93) -30 to -20 (18) -50 to -30 (1)
    • ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2011 HP Deprivation Index ED2011 absolute Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (14) 20 to 30 (82) 10 to 20 (296) 0 to 10 (1026) -10 to 0 (1414) -20 to -10 (460) -30 to -20 (98) -50 to -30 (18)
    • ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 1991 HP Deprivation Index ED 1991 relative Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (53) 20 to 30 (79) 10 to 20 (252) 0 to 10 (1184) -10 to 0 (1431) -20 to -10 (360) -30 to -20 (49)
    • ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 1996 HP Deprivation Index ED 1996 relative Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (37) 20 to 30 (100) 10 to 20 (325) 0 to 10 (1112) -10 to 0 (1390) -20 to -10 (375) -30 to -20 (66) -50 to -30 (3)
    • ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2002 HP Deprivation Index ED 2002 relative Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (11) 20 to 30 (86) 10 to 20 (406) 0 to 10 (1125) -10 to 0 (1333) -20 to -10 (346) -30 to -20 (91) -50 to -30 (10)
    • ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2006 HP Deprivation Index ED 2006 relative Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (2) 20 to 30 (76) 10 to 20 (420) 0 to 10 (1204) -10 to 0 (1267) -20 to -10 (317) -30 to -20 (98) -50 to -30 (24)
    • ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2011 HP Deprivation Index ED 2011 relative Haase & Pratschke 2013 30 to 75 (19) 20 to 30 (91) 10 to 20 (368) 0 to 10 (1161) -10 to 0 (1331) -20 to -10 (352) -30 to -20 (76) -50 to -30 (10)
    • HP DEPRIVATION SCORES IN COMPARISON, 1991-2011 HP Deprivation Index N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation HP 1991 ED absolute 3,409 -28.0 73.3 0.0 10.0 HP 1996 ED absolute 3,409 -27.4 45.7 4.3 9.2 HP 2002 ED absolute 3,409 -30.6 42.1 8.4 9.9 HP 2006 ED absolute 3,409 -35.0 39.9 9.2 9.3 HP 2011 ED absolute 3,409 -43.7 41.6 -1.4 10.1 HP 1991 ED relative 3,409 -28.0 73.3 0.0 10.0 HP 1996 ED relative 3,409 -34.4 45.1 0.0 10.0 HP 2002 ED relative 3,409 -39.4 34.0 0.0 10.0 HP 2006 ED relative 3,409 -47.4 32.9 0.0 10.0 HP 2011 ED relative 3,409 -41.9 42.7 0.0 10.0
    • THE POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX - DUBLIN INNER CITY (ED LEVEL)
    • THE POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX - DUBLIN INNER CITY (SA LEVEL)
    • SA-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2011 Relative Index Score 2011 Haase & Pratschke 2012 30 to 50 (30) 20 to 30 (474) 10 to 20 (2412) 0 to 10 (6232) -10 to 0 (6483) -20 to -10 (2408) -30 to -20 (447) -60 to -30 (2)
    •  Local development  Local Community Development Programme (LCDP), RAPID  Childcare Initiatives, Family Resource Centres, County Development Plans  Health  Mortality Studies, Epidemiological Studies, Primary Health Care, Health Inequality  Education  Educational Disadvantage, Higher Education Access Route  Environment  National Transport Planning, National Spatial Strategy  Statistical Methods and Research Design  Improved Sampling Strategy for CSO Household Surveys  Social Equality / Inequality (EU-SILC, QNHS, GUI, TILDA, SLAN, NDS) USING THE POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX FOR POLICY DESIGN AND IMPACT EVALUATION
    • LowModerateHigh AffluentDeprived SD -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 0.1% 2.1% 13.6% 34.1% 34.1% 13.6% 2.1% 0.1% Health Risks HEALTH RISK AND RELATIVE AFFLUENCE / DEPRIVATION
    • www.trutzhaase.eu