Back to deprivation explainers

What changed between IMD 2019 and IMD 2025

The 2025 release is the first update since 2019. It includes new data sources, more indicators and refreshed statistical geographies, which means results cannot always be compared directly.

A larger and more detailed index

IMD 2025 uses a broader set of indicators than IMD 2019. The number of indicators increased from 39 to 55. This includes:

These changes make the 2025 index more sensitive to different types of disadvantage across England.

Updated data sources and refreshed LSOA boundaries

Many underlying datasets have been updated or replaced. For example, IMD 2025 uses Census 2021 based geographies rather than older boundaries. This means that:

Boundary refreshes help keep IMD aligned with the real distribution of people and households.

Domain specific updates

Several IMD domains received substantial updates. Key examples include:

Domain Changes in 2025
Income New data sources for low income households and updated benefit datasets.
Employment More detailed measures of work limiting health conditions.
Education Incorporation of post Covid changes to school performance measures.
Health Updated life expectancy, illness prevalence and mortality data.
Crime Revised police recorded crime datasets reflecting national changes in reporting.
Housing and services Improved measures of access to key local services, digital access and affordability.
Living environment Updated air quality and housing condition indicators.

A new rural deprivation report

IMD 2025 is accompanied by a dedicated rural analysis that highlights how disadvantage appears differently in rural England. This reflects feedback that the 2019 methodology was less sensitive to rural issues such as:

Caution when comparing IMD 2019 and IMD 2025

Because of the new data, changed indicators and refreshed boundaries, direct comparison of ranks between 2019 and 2025 should be done carefully. A change in rank can reflect:

Broad patterns can still be compared, but small changes in rank should not be overinterpreted.