10015

Sussex Uncovered 2: Bridging the Gap

You can download the updated version of Sussex Uncovered 2: Bridging the Gap here or read it online here.

You can download the full data, much of which was used in Sussex Uncovered 2, using the links below.

Overall deprivation in Sussex

Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) averages

IMD Sussex deprivation by ward

IMD deprivation Sussex LSOAs against national ranks 

Three most deprived LSOAs in each Sussex district

Population

Population change 

Older population 

Younger population 

Poverty

Older people in poverty

Child poverty by district 

Child poverty all Sussex LSOAs

Employment and unemployment

Unemployment  

Youth unemployment  

Employment income

Education, skills and training

Education, skills and training

Sussex district GCSE attainment 

Disability

Disability  

Health

Health deprivation against national rankings

IMD Sussex health deprivation 

Homelessness

Homelessness

Crime

Crime by Sussex ward

Barriers to shops and services

IMD Distance to shop 

IMD barriers to housing and services 

Barriers to housing Sussex wards against national rank

Living environment 

Living environment by Sussex ward

Living environment by Sussex district

Road traffic accidents

Methodology

The updated data in the report is based mainly on the Government’s 2015 Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) figures. We used this because it is nationally available, consistent and comparable at various geographical levels. The English indices of multiple deprivation measure relative deprivation in small areas in England called lower-layer super output areas (LSOAs). The index of multiple deprivation is the most widely used of these indices. LSOAs have an average 1,500 people so they give a good indication of smaller pockets of deprivation. 

All of the indices of deprivation measure relative deprivation at small area level as accurately as possible, but they are not designed to provide ‘backwards’ comparability with previous versions of the indices (2010, 2007, 2004 and 2000). It would be erroneous to compare the figures from 2010 and 2015 in too simplistic a way – ie. where a specific district has moved up or down the ranking, it does not necessarily imply that real levels of deprivation have changed, only that levels have changed relative to other areas.

Back to top