Back to deprivation explainers
IMD is a powerful tool, but it has important limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting the data.
IMD ranks areas from most deprived to least deprived. It does not tell you the absolute level of deprivation in any one place.
A common misunderstanding is to treat the ranks as if they were scores on a continuous scale. For example, an area ranked 1,000 is not twice as deprived as an area ranked 2,000. Both positions are relative to the rest of England.
IMD describes neighbourhoods, not people. Using IMD as if it labelled individuals can be misleading and unfair.
Within any area there will be people who are doing relatively well and others who face significant challenges. It is important not to assume that everyone in a more deprived area is deprived or that no one in a less deprived area is struggling.
Each IMD release refreshes data sources and sometimes updates the method. Boundaries for statistical areas may also change as populations grow or move.
This means that small changes in rank for a particular neighbourhood between releases should be interpreted carefully. They can reflect:
Each UK nation has its own index of multiple deprivation with methods tailored to its context. While they share a common purpose, they are not directly comparable.
IMD for England should not be used to make direct comparisons with the indices for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland without careful methodological work.
IMD works best when used as part of a wider evidence base. Good practice is to combine it with:
This helps avoid overreliance on a single measure and supports more rounded decisions.