Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Pobal hp deprivation index   oecd leed 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Pobal hp deprivation index oecd leed 2013

196

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
196
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 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
  • 2. 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.
  • 3.  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
  • 4.  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)
  • 5.  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)
  • 6.  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
  • 7. 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
  • 8. most disadvantaged most affluent marginally below the average marginally above the average disadvantaged affluent very disadvantaged very affluent extremely disadvantaged extremely affluent MAPPING DEPRIVATION
  • 9. 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)
  • 10. 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)
  • 11. 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)
  • 12. 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)
  • 13. 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)
  • 14. 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)
  • 15. 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)
  • 16. 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)
  • 17. 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)
  • 18. 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)
  • 19. 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
  • 20. THE POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX - DUBLIN INNER CITY (ED LEVEL)
  • 21. THE POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX - DUBLIN INNER CITY (SA LEVEL)
  • 22. 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)
  • 23.  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
  • 24. 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
  • 25. www.trutzhaase.eu

×