Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke

THE 2011 POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX FOR SMALL AREAS (SA)

Statistical Features

Dublin, August 2012

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2011 POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX

• This presentation highlights some of the more technical issues in the construction of the 2006 and 2011 Pobal HP Deprivation Index for Small Areas (SA) and is aimed at the more statistically-minded reader.

• At the level of the individual indicator variables, the presentation includes:

• The transformation of the 2006 indicator variables

• The transformation of the 2011 indicator variables

• A comparison of the 2006 and 2011 indicator variables

• At the level of the new Pobal HP Deprivation Index, the presentation includes:

• The change in the 2006-2011 Absolute Index Scores

• The change in the 2006-2011 Relative Index Scores

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

Age Dependency Rate1

Population Change2

Primary Education only3

Third Level Education4

Professional Classes

5Persons per Room

6

Lone Parents

7Semi- and Unskilled Classes

8

Male Unemployment Rate9

Female Unemployment Rate 10

DemographicGrowth

Social ClassComposition

Labour MarketSituation

BASIC MODEL OF THE POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX

THE TRANSFORMATION OF INDICATOR VARIABLES

• When deriving composite indicators for multi-dimensional concepts, like deprivation, it is common practice to transform the individual indicator variables to normalise their distribution prior to model estimation

• The most common transformations include:

• truncation - to avoid the undue influence of extreme outliers

• zero-centering – to eliminate unwanted trend influences

• logarithmic – to normalise a skewed distribution

• The transformation of scaled variables does not affect the order of observations

• The overall emphasis on deriving true measures for the composite index as a distance from the mean is thereby maintained, whilst avoiding that this is unduly influenced by a small number of extreme observations

POPULATION CHANGE (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.39 n = 18,246

Transformation: truncated at ±60%

2006Before Mean: 12.0 STD: 29.1 Skew: 4.3Kurtosis: 34.9After Mean: 9.9 STD: 20.1 Skew: 1.3Kurtosis: .8

2011Before Mean: 48.9 STD: 645.8 Skew: 34.8

Kurtosis: 1527After Mean: 7.6 STD: 21.2 Skew: 1.0Kurtosis: 1.0

AGE DEPENDENCY RATE (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.75n = 18,246

Transformation: truncated at 70%

2006Before Mean: 31.1 STD: 8.8 Skew: -0.35

Kurtosis: 3.0After Mean: 31.1 STD: 8.7 Skew: -0.55

Kurtosis: 1.6

2011Before Mean: 32.7 STD: 8.2 Skew: -0.71

Kurtosis: 1.9After Mean: 32.7 STD: 8.2 Skew: -0.72

Kurtosis: 1.8

LONE PARENT RATE (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.61n = 18,246

Transformation: natural log

2006Before Mean: 20.9 STD: 17.5 Skew: 1.3Kurtosis: 1.8After Mean: 3.3 STD: .54 Skew: 0.07

Kurtosis: -0.6

2011Before Mean: 21.5 STD: 16.5 Skew: 1.2Kurtosis: 1.4After Mean: 3.3 STD: 0.51 Skew: 0.01

Kurtosis: -0.5

PRIMARY EDUCATION ONLY (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.90n = 18,246

Transformation: zero-centred – natural log

2006Before Mean: 18.7 STD: 12.1 Skew: 0.7Kurtosis: 0.7After Mean: 3.6 STD: 0.3 Skew: 0.02

Kurtosis: -0.7

2011Before Mean: 16.0 STD: 10.7 Skew: 0.8Kurtosis: 0.5After Mean: 3.7 STD: 0.3 Skew: 0.2Kurtosis: -0.6

THIRD LEVEL EDUCATION (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.90n = 18,246

Transformation: zero-centred – natural log

2006Before Mean: 30.9 STD: 16.8 Skew: 0.9Kurtosis: 0.4After Mean: 3.6 STD: 0.4 Skew: -0.17

Kurtosis: -0.14

2011Before Mean: 30.7 STD: 16.6 Skew: -0.85

Kurtosis: 0.47After Mean: 3.6 STD: 0.4 Skew: -0.20

Kurtosis: -0.12

HIGHER AND LOWER PROFESSIONALS (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.89n = 18,246

Transformation: none

2006Before Mean: 32.9 STD: 15.0 Skew: 0.4Kurtosis: -0.04After Mean: STD: Skew:Kurtosis:

2011Before Mean: 34.1 STD: 15.2 Skew: 0.4Kurtosis: -0.14After Mean: STD: Skew:Kurtosis:

SEMI- AND UNSKILLED SOCIAL CLASSES (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.81n = 18,246

Transformation: natural log

2006Before Mean: 19.4 STD: 10.6 Skew: 0.8Kurtosis: 1.2After Mean: 3.2 STD: 0.4 Skew: -0.3Kurtosis: 0.0

2011Before Mean: 18.6 STD: 9.8 Skew: 0.7Kurtosis: 0.5After Mean: 3.2 STD: 0.4 Skew: -0.3Kurtosis: -0.1

MALE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.62n = 18,246

Transformation: natural log

2006Before Mean: 9.1 STD: 8.4 Skew: 2.4Kurtosis: 11.0After Mean: 2.3 STD: 0.6 Skew: 0.2Kurtosis: -0.1

2011Before Mean: 23.1 STD: 12.7 Skew: 1.1Kurtosis: 1.1After Mean: 3.1 STD: 0.5 Skew: -0.3Kurtosis: 0.2

FEMALE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.51n = 18,246

Transformation: natural log

2006Before Mean: 8.3 STD: 7.3 Skew: 2.1Kurtosis: 10.1After Mean: 2.2 STD: 0.6 Skew: -0.1Kurtosis: -0.3

2011Before Mean: 15.5 STD: 9.5 Skew: 1.3Kurtosis: 2.3After Mean: 2.8 STD: 0.5 Skew: -0.3Kurtosis: 0.3

AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS PER ROOM (SA)

Comparison of 2006 and 2011

r = 0.70n = 18,246

Transformation: truncated – natural log

2006Before Mean: 0.51 STD: 0.09 Skew: 1.4Kurtosis: 6.4After Mean: -0.69 STD: 0.16 Skew: 0.5Kurtosis: 0.7

2011Before Mean: 0.51 STD: 0.18 Skew: 20.2

Kurtosis: 854After Mean: -0.70 STD: 0.17 Skew: 0.7Kurtosis: 0.3

COMPARISON OF 2006 AND 2011 ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES

COMPARISON OF 2006 AND 2011 RELATIVE INDEX SCORES