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