�ʶ�����

The �ʶ����� Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) is the �ʶ����� Government’s official measure of relative deprivation for small areas in Wales. It is designed to identify those small areas where there are the highest concentrations of several different types of deprivation.

The last index was published in 2019. We are currently planning for an updated index to be published in late 2025. In November 2024 we published a report of proposed indicators for WIMD 2025.

This report summarises feedback received on those proposals, via a survey which ran from 11 November to 16 December 2024, and was open to all individuals and organisations. It also outlines recent developments or changes made to proposals after considering survey responses and views of our advisory groups.

It does not repeat the full detail included in the original proposals report. For further background on WIMD, and on how we developed the proposals, please refer to the earlier proposals report.

�ʶ�����thanks everyone who responded to the survey. In total, 29 written responses were received and around 55 people attended our webinars.

Responses were received from a range of different organisations including local authorities, health boards, third sector organisations and other public sector organisations. Four responses were from �ʶ�����officials, and the rest from external organisations. There was some representation from all regions of Wales. A full list of responding organisations can be found at annex 1.

Respondents were not required to answer all questions. Percentages shown for each question are calculated using the number of responses for that specific question, and do not include respondents who skipped the question.

The number of responses to the survey means the feedback is unlikely to fully capture the range of organisations, roles and interests of potential WIMD users. The responses will reflect the specific interests of the respondents and their organisations, which could impact on prioritisation of indicators and the level of responses to domain-specific questions.

The next section summarises our current proposed list of indicators following the survey feedback, advice from advisory groups, and other recent developments. It shows changes made between 2019 indicators and 2025 proposals.

Subsequent sections provide an overview of feedback received in response to the survey questions asked in our proposals report. They provide summaries of anonymised responses that focus on viewpoints supported by multiple respondents. They do not capture every comment received.

The eight domain-specific sections follow a similar format covering:

• Responses to specific questions
• Summary of indicators for WIMD 2025
• Outstanding issues
• Other indicators to consider for future
• Changes to proposals after survey feedback or recent work

Our proposed indicators following the survey are outlined below, indicating changes between WIMD 2019 and WIMD 2025.

Some work on indicator development is ongoing and we will continue development work over the next few months. Final decisions on these indicators will be taken with steer from our advisory groups as well as the user feedback.

We plan to publish WIMD 2025 in November 2025. Any further updates on timescales or indicators in the interim will be published on our WIMD website.

Income

WIMD 2019 indicators we will update for WIMD 2025

• Percentage of population in receipt of income-related benefits and tax credits.

Employment

WIMD 2019 indicators we will update for WIMD 2025

• Percentage of working age population in receipt of employment-related benefits.

Health

WIMD 2019 indicators we will update for WIMD 2025

• Low birth weight
• Children with obesity (reception class)
• Cancer incidence
• Diagnosed mental health conditions
• Diagnosed chronic conditions
• Limiting long term illness
• Premature death rate

Potential new indicators for WIMD 2025

• Uptake of childhood vaccinations (subject to data review).
• Dental health (subject to data review but unlikely to be included).

Education

WIMD 2019 indicators we will update for WIMD 2025

• Key Stage 4 average point score.
• Persistent absenteeism rate – primary (previously combined for primary and secondary stages, with a different threshold).
• Persistent absenteeism rate – secondary (as above).
• Proportion of people not entering Higher Education aged 18 to 19.
• Number of adults aged 25 to 64 with no or low qualifications (previously just no qualifications).

Potential new indicators for WIMD 2025

• School leavers aged 16 to 19 who are not in employment, education or training (we are exploring Careers Wales data but this is unlikely to be included).

Indicators we will not update for WIMD 2025

• Foundation Phase average point score (no longer available).
• Key Stage 2 average point score (no longer available).

Access to services

WIMD 2019 indicators we will update for WIMD 2025

• Average travel time by public and private transport to a food shop
• Average travel time by public and private transport to a GP surgery
• Average travel time by public and private transport to a sports facility
• Average travel time by public and private transport to a secondary school
• Average travel time by public and private transport to a pharmacy
• Average travel time by public and private transport to a post office
• Average travel time by public and private transport to a primary school
• Average travel time by public and private transport to a public library
• Average travel time by private transport to a petrol station
• Access to digital services (definition subject to final data review)

Potential new indicators for WIMD 2025

• Average travel time by public and private transport to childcare services (subject to data review).

Housing

WIMD 2019 indicators we will update for WIMD 2025

• Overcrowding (Census-based bedroom measure).
• Poor quality housing indicator as measured through hazards and disrepair (subject to agreeing an approach for updating the data).

Potential new indicators for WIMD 2025

• Inability to afford to enter owner occupation or the private rental market (subject to data review)
• Poor energy performance for dwellings (subject to data review).

Community safety

WIMD 2019 indicators we will update for WIMD 2025

• Police recorded burglary
• Police recorded criminal damage
• Police recorded theft
• Police recorded violent crime (we are exploring replacing this with multiple component indicators such as ‘violence without injury’, ‘homicide and violence with injury’, and ‘stalking and coercive control’)
• Anti-social behaviour
• Fire incidences

Potential new indicators for WIMD 2025

• Police recorded sexual offences (subject to data review)

For WIMD 2019, the purpose of the income domain was to measure the proportion of people with income below a defined level. For WIMD 2025, we will review how we describe the domain once we have determined the best indicator definition. It is possible that the purpose will be described with reference to low income being used as a proxy for material deprivation. 

Responses to specific questions

Question 4: Given the likely changes described for the indicators within the income domain, do you think the domain weight within the overall index should be higher, lower or the same as the weight used in 2019, which was 22%?

In total, there were 21 respondents for this question, with 8 respondents choosing to skip. A majority of respondents thought that the weighting should stay the same as WIMD 2019, with 12 respondents (57%) voting for this. 

The remaining respondents were split between increasing the weighting or lowering the weighting. Five (24%) respondents thought the weighting for the income domain should be increased, while 4 (19%) respondents thought the weighting should be decreased. 

Question 5: Please explain your rationale for the above response and provide any other comments on proposals for the income domain.

The consensus from respondents was that the weighting for the income domain should remain the same as 2019 (which was 22%).

Comments gave various reasons why people voted how they did: some highlighted the importance of the income domain in representing material deprivation and the increasing importance of this due to recent events (e.g. cost of living crisis and rising inflation). They presented a case against lowering the domain weighting because of this. Several respondents thought it remained one of the most important domains within the index, suggesting a higher weighting for income than the employment domain.

Other comments suggested that the already high weighting of the income domain detracts from the importance of other domains, particularly the health and physical environment domains. Some respondents felt these other domains were being underrepresented given the impact they can have on deprivation, so the weighting for income should be kept the same as 2019, or lower. 

Where mentioned, several respondents showed support for doing work alongside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). This influenced the weightings, as some felt that the push for greater alignment with the English index should also carry over to the domain weightings.

However, ongoing Universal Credit (UC) rollout and potential impacts of this meant that some respondents did not have a firm opinion on the weightings as yet. This was mentioned by several local authorities that responded. A couple of respondents felt that the changes to UC would not have sufficient impact on the domain to suggest changing the weighting.

In their general comments, 3 respondents mentioned the option of whether to include an earnings threshold in the indicator, recognising the complexities around the decision but currently favouring option 2 (to include a threshold).

One respondent encouraged us to review the potential of the ONS experimental admin-based income statistics for England and Wales (ABIS) as developments progress. They also mentioned the DWP’s children in low income families statistics. Related to this, note that we aim to publish an age breakdown of the next WIMD income deprivation indicator, including data for children.

Summary of indicators for WIMD 2025

Considering the survey responses, which overall supported our proposals, we plan to adopt the approach recommended by MHCLG and DWP.

The specification for the income domain will continue to be based on administrative data drawn from the benefits system, the tax credits systems and Home Office data on supported asylum seekers. The specification has evolved through iterative discussions with DWP since our proposals report was published and now applies an income threshold to working households.

Although still being finalised, the likely proposal is to include in the domain numerator the following categories of benefit unit, including all claimants as of 31 March 2024, their partners and dependent children:

• ‘Legacy’ out-of-work means-tested benefits (Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance)
• Pension Credit (Guarantee)
• UC ‘out of work’ conditionality groups
• UC ‘in work’ conditionality groups, whose equivalised income for the month of March 2024 (minus health/caring-related UC entitlements; minus other health/disability-related benefits; and minus actual housing costs) is below a 70% median threshold
• Housing Benefit-only (i.e. not also claiming one of the other benefits listed above), whose equivalised ‘estimated’ income for the month of March 2024 (minus any health/disability-related benefits; and minus ‘estimated’ actual housing costs) is below a 70% median threshold
• Tax Credit-only (i.e. not also claiming one of the other benefits listed above), whose equivalised ‘estimated’ income for the month of March 2024 (minus any health/disability-related benefits; and minus ‘estimated’ actual housing costs) is below a 70% median threshold
• Asylum seekers in receipt of subsistence support, accommodation support, or both (Home Office)

Outstanding issues

Final weighting decisions for the index are outstanding.

As outlined in the proposals report and supported by the survey responses, we will seek to retain the highest relative weighting on income as a key aspect of deprivation. However we will review the weight of the income domain with our expert domain groups when data quality across indicators and domains has been assessed.

Some respondents referred to alignment with the income domain weight used in the English index. These were already quite similar in 2019, at 22% for WIMD and 22.5% for the English index. Given several other differences between the methodology of the indices that affect comparability, we will seek approximate alignment of the weights, rather than aiming to match exactly.

Other indicators to consider in future

As outlined in the proposals report, we will continue to review progress in developing  (ABIS) for potential use in future indices.

Changes to proposals after survey feedback or recent work

We note the support for this domain’s proposals, and for including an earnings threshold. As originally planned, the specification for the domain has been further developed since our proposals report, and broadly reflects option 2 from that report, but with a more recent timeframe of March 2024 and including an income threshold for working households.

The purpose of the employment domain is to capture lack of employment. This covers involuntary exclusion of the working-age population from work, including those people who cannot work due to ill-health or who are unemployed but actively seeking work. For WIMD 2025, we will review how we describe the domain once we have determined the best indicator definition. For example, we may add reference to caring responsibilities as a further reason for exclusion from work if the indicator is extended to cover Carer’s Allowance, which it has not done previously.

Responses to specific questions

Question 6: Given the likely changes described for the indicators within the employment domain, do you think the domain weight within the overall index should be higher, lower or the same as the weight used in 2019, which was 22%?

There were 20 respondents to this question. Like the income domain, the option to keep the same weighting as WIMD 2019 was the most popular, but to a greater extent: 14 respondents (70%) felt that the weighting for the employment domain should be the same as WIMD 2019.

However, the remaining responses were more skewed towards lowering the weighting from WIMD 2019. Out of the 6 remaining respondents, 5 (25%) thought that the weighting should be lower than 2019, and only 1 respondent felt that the weighting should be increased.

Question 7: Please explain your rationale for the above response and provide any other comments on proposals for the employment domain.

As with the income domain, there was a strong preference to maintain the weighting from 2019 for the employment domain. There are also some similarities in the reasons behind this, such as the importance of highlighting material deprivation. One respondent also mentioned how maintaining the same weight may allow for better comparisons with previous WIMD iterations.

Overall, respondents were in favour with working alongside MHCLG and DWP. One response also mentioned that if the methodology for income and employment for Wales aligns with work being done in England, the weightings could be the same in each nation’s index.

Some respondents have advocated for changing the weightings for employment separately from income. Points raised here focused on the complexity of employment (i.e. zero-hour contracts and self-employment), the fact the domain contains a single indicator which may not justify the high weighting, and that employment should be weighted lower than income in order to focus more directly on poverty. A couple of respondents who answered a later question in the survey about weightings suggested the employment domain weight should be lower than in 2019, at around 17% to 18%.

A few respondents noted the ongoing work on this indicator and that it was difficult to provide a firm answer on weighting until more developments have been made with the domain.

Summary of indicators for WIMD 2025

Considering the survey responses, which overall supported our proposals, we will adopt the approach recommended by MHCLG and DWP.

As outlined in detail in our proposals report, the employment domain will consist of a count of individuals aged 18 to 66, averaged over twelve separate monthly timepoints from April 2022 to March 2023, who were entitled to:

• Jobseeker’s Allowance/New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance
• Employment and Support Allowance/New Style Employment and Support Allowance
• Income Support
• Invalid Care Allowance/Carer’s Allowance
• Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance
• UC claimants in the following conditionality groups:
  • No work requirements
  • Planning for work (to cover those involuntarily excluded due to caring responsibilities)
  • Preparing for work (includes those with limited capability to work due to health conditions or a child aged 2)
  • Searching for work

The indicator would be expressed as a percentage of those aged 18 to 66. The source is DWP.

Outstanding issues

Final weighting decisions for the index are outstanding.

As outlined in the proposals report and supported by the survey responses, we will seek to retain a relatively high weighting on employment as a key aspect of deprivation. However we will review the weight of the employment domain with our expert domain groups when data quality across indicators and domains has been assessed.

Some respondents referred to alignment with the employment domain weight used in the English index. These were already quite similar in 2019, at 22% for WIMD and 22.5% for the English index. Given several other differences between the methodology of the indices that affect comparability, we will seek approximate alignment of the weights, rather than aiming to match exactly.

Other indicators to consider in future

None currently identified.

Changes to proposals after survey feedback or recent work

We note the support for this domain’s proposals; therefore no changes to plans were made as a result of the survey feedback.

The purpose of this domain is to measure lack of good health in all people, and to capture predictors of future health based on deprivation experienced in childhood. Some indicators in this domain are age-sex standardised to account for population differences across small areas.

Responses to specific questions

Question 8: Please rate the relevance to the health domain of the potential new indicator on childhood vaccinations: the uptake of all routine immunisations at four years of age.

22 people responded to this question, and 7 people skipped. 90% (20) of the 22 respondents thought that the proposed indicator was either somewhat or highly relevant to the health domain, with 10 selecting ‘highly relevant’ and 10 selecting ‘somewhat relevant’. The other 2 respondents both chose the option ‘neither relevant nor not relevant’, with no respondents choosing the ‘not at all relevant’ option.

Question 9: Please rank the following in order, in terms of how you would prioritise the three indicators relating to babies and children for inclusion in WIMD 2025. (1 = highest priority)

The indicator (relating to babies and children) with the highest priority ranking for inclusion in WIMD 2025 was children aged 4 to 5 with obesity. Low birth weight was ranked a close second overall, and childhood vaccinations (potential new indicator) was third in the rankings. 20 people responded to this question in total.

Question 10: Please rate the relevance to the health domain of the potential new indicator on dental health.

22 people responded to this question. Out of those 22, over 80% thought that the potential new indicator on dental health was at least somewhat relevant to the health domain. 10 people (46%) thought it was highly relevant and 8 people (36%) thought it was somewhat relevant.

3 people (14%) thought that the proposed indicator was neither relevant nor not relevant, and 1 respondent thought that the proposed indicator was not at all relevant to the health domain.

Question 11: Please explain your rationale for the above responses and provide any other comments on proposals for the health domain.

Dental health

Access to dental care was raised by several respondents as a potential issue affecting coverage of the proposed ‘dental health’ indicator data, which may not robustly capture the overall dental health of the population. Several respondents mentioned lack of available places / waiting lists for registering with an NHS dentist, as well as their affordability for some. Some people who are registered with a dentist may find it hard to schedule appointments or travel to their dentist, and households who are better off may be using private dental care instead (which would not be captured in the proposed measure). Respondents told us that it is important that these scenarios are considered in deciding whether to include the data for dental health.

Childhood vaccinations

Several respondents expanded on their rating and ranking of this proposed new indicator. Some explained that they supported inclusion of the indicator due to the inequality gap in immunisation uptake by four years of age, the potential impact of work patterns on availability for appointments, and misinformation affecting certain groups. However some expressed concerns around complicating factors affecting uptake and its impact, such as parental choice, cultural differences, and herd immunity. Overall, the proposed indicator was supported as outlined in the results above, but with some caution and caveats in mind.

Our proposals report said that we are unlikely to have permission to publish the indicator data at lower-layer super output area (LSOA) level due to privacy concerns. We would like to clarify that it would be LSOA level data used in the domain calculations, but potentially only higher level data being published for the specific indicator.

Other comments

Although more detailed answers can be found in a later question, some respondents also mentioned the weighting of the health domain. Comments referred to how the proposed new indicators would strengthen the domain and suggested that the weighting for health could increase from 2019.

Some respondents expanded on their ranking in question 9 by explaining why they supported continuing the previous indicators on low birth weight or children with obesity, with reasons including the evidence on long term impacts of these factors.

One respondent raised a concern regarding the GP-recorded mental health indicator (already included in WIMD 2019), specifically whether a recent increase in awareness of mental health conditions may be reflected in increased diagnoses creating a false impression that the number of people with mental health conditions has increased. However the primary purpose of WIMD is to provide a relative ranking of small areas at a given snapshot, rather than analyse trends in indicator data over time, and our indicator data article will continue to provide guidance on comparability of data over time.

Summary of indicators for WIMD 2025

Indicators that are related to children

• We plan to update the measures of low birth weight and children with obesity.
• New: We continue to explore a new measure of uptake of childhood vaccinations and have begun data quality assurance. We note that this was ranked third among the three indicators relating to babies and children and will take this into account when evaluating the value added by this indicator to the domain.

Indicators that capture specific diagnosed conditions

• We plan to update the indicators on chronic conditions and mental health conditions diagnosed by GPs, and cancer incidence.

Indicators that capture the status of the population’s health more broadly

• We plan to update the indicators of premature deaths and self-reported limiting long-term illness.
• New: we are exploring a new measure of dental health but anticipate that this will be ruled out of this index due to gaps in coverage.

Outstanding issues

As indicated above, two potential indicators are still being explored. Final weighting decisions for the index are outstanding pending receipt of all datasets.

Other indicators to consider in future

As described in the proposals report, we will review the potential to derive an indicator from the student health and wellbeing survey of secondary schools conducted by the School Health Research Network for future iterations of the index.

Changes to proposals after survey feedback or recent work

We note the overall support for this domain’s proposals; therefore no changes to plans were made as a result of the survey feedback.

The purpose of this domain is to capture the extent of deprivation relating to education, training, and skills. It is designed to reflect educational disadvantage within an area in terms of lack of qualifications and skills. The proposed indicators capture low attainment among children and young people and low level of qualifications among adults.

Responses to specific questions

Question 12: To what extent do you agree with the following proposed changes to the education domain indicators?

In total, 22 people responded to this question, while 7 skipped.

Split the repeat absenteeism indicator into two separate indicators, one for primary school and one for secondary school repeat absenteeism.

The majority of respondents (77%) agreed with this proposal, with 6 people strongly agreeing, and 11 selecting the ‘agree’ option. The remainder of respondents (5 people) neither agreed nor disagreed that the repeat absenteeism indicator should be split into two separate indicators. No respondents disagreed with this proposal.

Use threshold of missing 10% (rather than 15%) or more of half day school sessions for repeat absenteeism.

A total of 9 (41%) respondents agreed with this proposal, with all 9 selecting the ‘agreed’ option and none selecting ‘strongly agreed’. The highest percentage of respondents (50%, 10 people) said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to use a threshold of 10% instead of 15%. The remaining 3 respondents disagreed with the proposal, and no-one selected the ‘strongly disagree’ option.

Include other destinations, such as wider learning or sustained employment outcomes, in the KS4 leavers indicator.

Over 90% (20 respondents) agreed with the proposal to include other destinations in the KS4 leavers indicator. Of those 20 respondents, 4 people (18% of total respondents) strongly agreed, while 16 (73% of total respondents) agreed with the proposal. There was one respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed, and one who disagreed with the proposal.

Include those with level 1 qualifications, as well as those with no qualifications, in the expanded indicator ‘adults with no or low qualifications’.

A high percentage of respondents agreed with this proposal. Of the 22 total respondents, 4 strongly agreed and 15 agreed, making a total of over 85% of respondents that agreed with the proposal to include those with level 1 qualifications. The remaining 3 respondents all neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

Question 13: Given the likely changes described for the indicators within the education domain, do you think the domain weight should be higher, lower or the same as the weight used in 2019, which was 14%?

A total of 20 people responded to this question, with 9 skipping. Of the 20 respondents, three quarters (15 people) thought that the weighting for the education domain should remain the same as 2019. Of the remaining 5 responses, 4 respondents thought the weight should be higher than in 2019, and one respondent suggested the weight should be decreased.

Question 14: Please explain your rationale for the above responses and provide any other comments on proposals for the education domain.

Repeat absenteeism

As seen in the above summary, most respondents agreed with the proposal to split the repeat absenteeism indicator into two separate indicators. Responses that agreed with the proposal included explanations such as secondary pupils tending to miss more school than primary pupils.

There were two responses that expressed slight concerns about this proposal; that the definition for repeat absenteeism should be clear, and that it's important to recognise that the repeat absenteeism rate in primary school indicator is not a replacement and does not address the gap for an indicator of foundation phase and KS2 attainment.

The other comments related to the repeat absenteeism indicator referred to the proposal to use a threshold of missing 10% (rather than 15%) or more of half day school sessions. As shown in the summary of responses to question 12, respondents were less sure about this proposal. One respondent noted that 10% is in line with the new ‘persistent absence’ threshold, but that this used to be 20%. One respondent queried the potential to look at unauthorised absences only.

Other responses suggested the threshold should not be decreased, citing issues such as the impact of absence due to illness, and a general increase in absenteeism since the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

While there were mixed views on the threshold we propose to use the 10% figure. This brings WIMD in line with �ʶ����� Government’s official definition of ‘persistent absenteeism’. We have also found that the change in threshold has minor impact on relative ranks of areas for the indicator, at a primary, secondary or overall basis.

KS4 average point score

The only comment on KS4 average point score agreed with the proposal to not include data from the period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

KS4 leavers indicator

As outlined in the summary for question 12, most respondents agreed with the proposal to include other destinations, such as wider learning or sustained employment outcomes, in the KS4 leavers indicator.

Respondents that supported this proposal explained that the change was important as it would strengthen the indicator and is a key indicator of future wellbeing.

A couple of concerns were raised. One respondent thought there may be some overlap with the employment domain and that the KS4 leavers indicator should only include those entering higher education. Another respondent asked if there could be a separate ‘access to opportunities (i.e. access to work, diversity of training)’ indicator, and thought that including destinations other than higher education (HE) may take away from the original intent of the KS4 leavers indicator.

We have given further thought to this issue (including the feedback above) with the education domain group of experts. Due to complexities and data lags in defining a ‘sustained employment’ outcome for this indicator, as well as concerns raised around departing from the original intention to capture progression to HE specifically, we will not widen the scope of outcomes for this indicator for WIMD 2025. We will explore the potential for an alternative, wider indicator of school leavers (aged 16 to 19) who are not in education, employment or training based on data from Careers Wales.

Adults with no or low qualifications

There was only one comment in relation to this proposal, which stated that including low qualifications would better highlight deprivation rather than having a ‘no qualifications’ only indicator. As outlined in the summary for question 12, respondents mostly supported this proposal.

Domain weighting

As summarised above for question 13, most respondents thought the weighting for the education domain should remain the same for 2025 as for 2019. One respondent thought there was some justification for decreasing the domain weight due to the current issues with early and primary age school performance data. Some respondents believed the domain weighting should be increased, one of whom mentioned the significance of educational disadvantage in deprivation and the range of indicators included within the domain.

Summary of indicators for WIMD 2025

School outcome / absenteeism indicators

• We plan to update the KS4 average point score (APS) indicator
• We will include separate ‘persistent absenteeism' indicators for primary and secondary education with a threshold of missing 10% of half-day sessions

Post-compulsory education / wider population indicators

• We plan to update the indicator for the proportion of KS4 leavers entering higher education
• We will include an indicator on the proportion of working age adults with no or low (level 1) qualifications

Outstanding issues

We are investigating the suitability of Careers Wales data for a further indicator on pupil destinations, as mentioned above. Final weighting decisions for the index are outstanding pending receipt of all datasets.

Other indicators to consider in future

We intend to reintroduce indicators linked to primary school attainment if data becomes available.

Changes to proposals after survey feedback or recent work

We note the overall support for this domain’s proposals, and proposals are broadly similar to previous, with two minor changes.

As mentioned in the summary above, we intend to refer to ‘persistent absenteeism’ rather than ‘repeat absenteeism’ indicators, since the indicator is now in line with the current official �ʶ�����definition.

We no longer intend to widen the scope of outcomes for the ‘KS4 leavers entering higher education’ indicator for WIMD 2025. We will instead explore the potential for an alternative, wider indicator of school leavers who are not in education, employment or training based on data from Careers Wales.

The purpose of this domain is to capture deprivation as a result of a household's inability to access a range of services considered necessary for day-to-day living, both physically and online. This covers both material deprivation (for example not being able to get food) and social aspects of deprivation (for example not being able to attend after-school activities).

Responses to specific questions

Question 15: Please rate the relevance to the access to services domain of the potential new indicator measuring travel times to childcare services.

There were 21 respondents to this question, with 8 respondents skipping. Seventeen respondents believed a potential indicator on travel times to childcare services was relevant. Of these, 9 respondents (43% of the total responses) believed the indicator was highly relevant to the domain, and 8 respondents (38% of the total responses) believed it was somewhat relevant.

The remaining 4 respondents (19%) believed that the indicator would be neither relevant nor irrelevant to the domain, with no respondents viewing the indicator as irrelevant to the domain.

Question 16: Please explain your rationale for the above responses and provide any other comments on proposals for the access to services domain.

There were 16 responses in total for this question from a range of organisations.

Travel times to childcare services indicator

Most comments received were focussed on the childcare services indicator. Generally, the responses to question 15 and question 16 indicated support for the inclusion of a childcare services indicator.

Several respondents highlighted the significant impact that access to childcare services has on deprivation and quality of life for those with children. This was mostly focussed on the impact childcare can have on employment, explicitly mentioned in 5 responses and indirectly referenced in more. Some other points mentioned the impact childcare services have on sense of community, understanding inequalities in gender and minority groups, and the challenges for accessing childcare services in rural communities.

However, some respondents raised concerns or considerations for the proposed childcare services indicator. The types of childcare services and children included in the data was mentioned by 6 respondents. Some of these suggested additional services ‘not on the books’ that they believed should be included. Some examples include youth work, distinctions between English or �ʶ����� language medium and SEND provision, and informal childcare with friends or family. Informal childcare was of particular concern due to the significance it has in some areas, and the fact that Care Inspectorate Wales does not record it.

Concerns over the exclusion of areas with small numbers of children were mentioned by two respondents; one focussed on the large proportion of informal childcare in some areas, which would be unrecorded, while the other focussed on potential impacts for affected areas. Some respondents also highlighted that working families are likely to use childcare services close to their place of work instead of home and other factors like affordability, which would not be considered in the indicator. In addition, two respondents explicitly stated that they do not see how the proposed indicator and dataset would relate to deprivation, or ‘fill a gap’ in the domain, respectively.

Overall, despite there being general support for the proposal to include a childcare services indicator, respondents highlighted concerns around complexity of childcare services and suitability of the available datasets. Most of these issues, whilst valid, are difficult or impossible to address in an indicator that meets our criteria. Despite the limitations, we propose there is still value in an indicator based on childcare services registered with Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW), as described in our proposal report.

Other comments

In addition to comments on childcare, some respondents suggested other services to consider for the domain, such as leisure activities, �ʶ����� language medium schools, and adult care homes.

Three respondents suggested other services to include in the domain, including cultural services or assets and community spaces (with a suggestion of a source via the Wales Community Assets and Wales Resilience Indices); dental surgeries and banking facilities.

Two respondents raised comments on the digital services indicator. One mentioned that the broadband services indicator should include full fibre alongside <30Mbps, and any mobile services indicator should consider access to all mobile providers and data on quality of service. Another commented that a far higher percentage than those not online are not proficient or confident online, so would encourage further work to determine related indicators for future iterations of WIMD.

Despite these suggested additions from a few respondents, overall respondents agreed the current proposals are sensible, in light of current data availability.

A couple of respondents also believe that the weighting for the access to services domain could be increased for WIMD 2025.

Summary of indicators for WIMD 2025

• We plan to update travel times to the eight services using public transport and nine services using private transport used in WIMD 2019.
• We plan to update the measure of access to broadband services.
• New: we are exploring an additional measure of travel times to childcare services.

Outstanding issues

Final weighting decisions for the domain are outstanding.

After the next Ofcom dataset is published, we will review the latest coverage of superfast broadband for small areas and consider whether an additional metric should be introduced as a “tiebreaker” for those areas unable to be ranked on superfast unavailability.

Other indicators to consider in future

Adult social care has been identified as a service of interest by both respondents to the survey and domain group members. While this will not be possible to investigate for inclusion in WIMD 2025, it has been noted for review for future updates to the index.

Changes to proposals after survey feedback or recent work

We note the overall support for this domain’s proposals; therefore no changes to plans were made as a result of the survey feedback.

Conceptually, the purpose of the housing domain is to identify inadequate housing, in terms of physical and living conditions and availability. Here, living condition means the suitability of the housing for its inhabitant(s), for example in terms of health and safety, and necessary adaptations.

Responses to specific questions

Question 17: Please rate the relevance to the housing domain of the potential new indicator on dwellings with poor energy performance (subject to increasing the coverage of the EPC dataset).

There were 24 responses to this question with 5 people skipping. Overall, the responses agree that the potential indicator was relevant to the domain.

12 respondents (50%) viewed the indicator as highly relevant to the domain. Of the remaining responses, 10 respondents (41.7%) viewed the indicator as somewhat relevant, and 2 respondents (8.3%) viewed the indicator as neither relevant nor irrelevant. No respondents viewed the indicator as irrelevant to the domain.

Question 18: Please rate the relevance to the housing domain of the potential modelled indicator of housing affordability (subject to data quality assurance).

There were 23 responses to this question with 6 people skipping. Overall, the responses show significant support for the inclusion of this indicator and believe it would be highly relevant.

17 respondents (73.9%) viewed the indicator as being highly relevant to the domain, with an additional 5 respondents (21.7%) viewing the indicator as somewhat relevant. One respondent viewed the indicator as neither relevant nor irrelevant.

Question 19: To what extent have you made use of the modelled indicators of poor housing quality, published and included in the WIMD 2019 housing domain?

There were 21 responses to this question with 8 people skipping. Overall, the responses indicate that there is varied frequency of usage for the modelled poor housing quality indicator amongst users, with several reporting infrequent usage.

15 respondents reported infrequent to no usage, with 9 respondents (42.9%) reporting having never used the indicator, and the other 6 respondents (28.6%) reporting rarely using the indicator. Of the remaining respondents, 5 respondents (23.8%) reported using the indicator sometimes. Only 1 respondent reported using the indicator very often.

Question 20: If you have made use of the modelled indicators of poor housing quality, please describe how you used them and provide any other feedback.

While the answers to question 19 show mixed usage, the answers provided for question 20 show that the modelled indicators for poor housing quality provide valuable information for several users. Their relevance was also recognised by respondents who stated that they have never used the modelled indicator data or have used it infrequently.

Poor housing quality was seen as an important indicator for housing-related policy initiatives and improving project delivery. Two respondents mentioned that the indicator is useful for understanding housing disrepair and housing adequacy. This was highlighted as an important issue because vulnerable groups, such as older people and those within the socially rented sector, are often disproportionately impacted by housing disrepair.

One respondent mentioned that the data was used in a range of housing-related projects, which mostly focused on improving housing conditions by directing investments. Some examples include, neighbourhood renewal schemes, area-based efficiency schemes and fuel poverty strategies. Another respondent highlighted that they believed the data could be useful for the proposed housing strategy on housing adequacy of Wales by measuring the habitability and level of property disrepair of the housing stock in Wales.

The modelled housing quality indicators were also stated to be valuable in other policy areas, such as health. One respondent linked the value of information on housing quality, and improvements made to housing using it, to contributing towards further improvements in other services such as health. Another respondent cited use of the indicator as a wider determinant of health, increasing understanding at small area level.

However, some respondents commented that they use other data sources, or that their usage of the modelled indicators has reduced over time due to decreasing relevance. The alternative data mentioned included: energy performance certificate (EPC) data, data on whether houses are connected to a gas network, and year of housing construction.

Question 21: Please rate the relevance to the housing domain of a measure of private outdoor space for properties as an indicator of housing deprivation.

There were 23 responses to this question with 6 people skipping. Overall, the responses agree that the potential indicator was relevant to the domain, however to a smaller extent than the previous two proposed indicators.

12 respondents (52.2%) viewed the indicator as being somewhat relevant to the domain, and 6 respondents (26.1%) viewed the indicator as being neither relevant nor irrelevant. Only 5 respondents (21.7%) viewed the indicator as highly relevant, however, no respondents viewed the indicator as irrelevant to the domain.

Question 22: Please explain your rationale for the above responses and provide any other comments on the proposals for the housing domain.

Dwellings with poor energy performance

As shown in the summary feedback for question 17, a large majority of respondents agreed that, subject to increasing the coverage of the EPC dataset, the proposed indicator on dwellings with poor energy performance was relevant to the housing domain. Several respondents voiced support for the proposal to collaborate with the MHCLG English indices of deprivation team around EPC data.

There were some data quality concerns raised around the quality and coverage of EPC data. As outlined in our proposals report, the approach would tackle coverage issues by imputing energy efficiency ratings for properties with missing data. We will carefully assess the method and data quality ahead of adopting this indicator proposal.

Some respondents mentioned alternative measures such as fuel poverty (ruled out in our proposals report) or data drawn from the �ʶ����� Housing Quality Standard (WHQS). The WHQS does not cover dwellings of every tenure so would be unsuitable as the sole basis for a WIMD indicator.

Respondents highlighted some other issues including challenges in improving energy efficiency ratings, and how social housing may tend to have more energy-efficient homes.

Housing affordability

As outlined in the summary for question 18, almost all respondents to this question thought that the proposed modelled indicator of housing affordability, subject to data quality assurance, would be relevant to the housing domain.

This was also highlighted in the comments, with several respondents describing the indicator as highly relevant for understanding deprivation, fundamental to access to adequate housing, and with potential uses beyond WIMD.

However, some respondents outlined complexities and concerns, such as the interaction of affordability with homeless applications, a desire to also consider unmet need, and increasing housing costs for current owner-occupiers and private renters.

Some respondents suggested the data might be more useful at the MSOA level due to less variation in average house prices compared to LSOA. As summarised in our proposals report, data on house prices and rents would be summarised across “housing market areas” of larger size than the LSOA.

Respondents also discussed the affordability criteria, with differing views on appropriate thresholds. To clarify, in addition to criteria related to mortgage lending multipliers or rent to income ratios, the proposal includes a second affordability criteria that net income after housing costs is above a pre-determined minimum level. Also, whilst we will review the choice of criteria, it is worth noting that the key aim for WIMD is to measure the relative position of small areas in terms of affordability, which will be less sensitive to small changes in chosen criteria than analysis focussing on absolute values.

Private outdoor space

Again, as shown in the summary for question 21, respondents generally supported the idea of a measure of private outdoor space for properties, describing it as a key component for addressing inequalities as outdoor spaces provide benefits for physical and mental health and wellbeing.

However, respondents were less supportive of this indicator compared to the other proposals for the housing domain. Some respondents felt private outdoor space has contextual significance but less impact on deprivation.

There were suggestions for alternative measures to be considered, such as access to safe community space, especially for those in flats or apartments. As mentioned in our proposals report, we already include a measure of proximity to accessible natural green space in the physical environment domain of WIMD.

Respondents suggested re-considering this measure for a later WIMD iteration once more established.

Other comments

Some respondents suggested weightings for the housing domain. One respondent suggested it could be increased if the proposed modelled indicator for housing affordability is developed; however, another respondent thought that the previous weighting (7%) used in 2019 is a suitable maximum weight for the housing domain, and that it could be lower if data quality becomes an issue with the indicators.

Finally, one respondent supported the measure of over-crowding (this was not asked as a question) but would like there to also be a measure for under-occupation, which can highlight other areas of deprivation; for example, single person households can struggle more with fuel poverty.

Summary of indicators for WIMD 2025

• We plan to update the indicator of overcrowding (Census 2021 based bedroom measure).
• We plan to update the modelled indicator of poor housing quality subject to agreeing a suitable approach for this.
• Subject to assessing data quality, we will include an indicator of energy inefficiency using data from Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) records, with imputation applied to missing records.
• Subject to assessing data quality, we will include a measure of housing affordability, expressed as the inability to afford to enter owner occupation or the private rental market.

Outstanding issues

As indicated above, two potential indicators are still being explored. Final weighting decisions for the index are outstanding pending receipt of all datasets.

Other indicators to consider in future

As described in the proposals report, we will review future progress on developing a new collection of individual level homelessness data in Wales and will consider the impact of climate change on what constitutes housing deprivation in future.

Changes to proposals after survey feedback or recent work

We note the overall support for this domain’s proposals.

Responses suggested that the WIMD 2019 modelled indicators for poor housing quality provided valuable information for several users. We are now exploring a potential update of the dataset and will include these indicators in WIMD 2025 if possible.

We note that several respondents also showed support for the idea of a measure of private outdoor space. We will therefore review this for future indices when the method is further developed.

This domain is intended to consider deprivation relating to living in a safe community. It covers actual experience of crime and fire, as well as perceptions of safety whilst out and about in the local area.

Responses to specific questions

Question 23: Please rate the relevance to the community safety domain of the potential new indicator on police-recorded sexual offences.

There were 21 respondents to this question and 8 respondents who skipped. Most respondents believed that the indicator was relevant to the domain, with 19 out of 21 respondents voting that the police-recorded crime indicator was at least somewhat relevant. Of these, 10 respondents (47.6%) believed the indicator was highly relevant to the domain, and the other 9 respondents (42.9%) believed it was somewhat relevant. The remaining 2 respondents believed that the indicator was neither relevant nor irrelevant to the domain. No respondents believed the indicator was irrelevant.

Question 24: Please explain your rationale for the above responses and provide any other comments on the proposals for the community safety domain.

There were 9 responses to this question from a range of organisations.

Police-recorded sexual offences

Overall, the inclusion of an indicator on police-recorded sexual offences was supported. There was a recurring theme of respondents viewing this type of crime as an important issue for vulnerable and deprived communities, alongside being highly impactful on feelings towards community and individual safety.

Two respondents explicitly mentioned how they believed a police-recorded sexual offences indicator would have practical applications. One linked the indicator to improving knowledge on whether the financial resources being allocated to addressing these societal issues on crime are effective. The other respondent focused on the indicator’s usefulness in understanding and addressing issues related to gender-based violence, as well as alignment with national priorities to tackle related social inequalities.

However, 3 respondents highlighted some concerns with the indicator and the data set being used. Issues with the data quality, particularly on the issue of under-reporting and under-recording, was raised by all these respondents. This was seen to have an impact on the robustness of the data, and questions on whether the indicator could capture the full extent of sexual offences.

Other comments

There were only 2 respondents who made comments on the domain outside of the police-recorded sexual offences indicator.

One respondent highlighted that a separate indicator for hate crime would have value for capturing issues related to protected characteristics, such as racism. However, they also acknowledged the impact of current issues with under-reporting and unrecording for hate crimes and overall are supportive of the rationale behind decisions for the community safety domain.

The other respondent asked whether an indicator on substance misuse has been considered for either the community safety or health domain. This has been considered in the past but not pursued due to potential small numbers for some small areas. Additionally, some of the impact of substance misuse would be captured more directly through other indicators for WIMD, for example those on premature mortality, chronic and mental health conditions.

Summary of indicators for WIMD 2025

Police recorded burglary

We are exploring the potential to include further years of data (previously 2-year averages) to improve data robustness. To note there have been some changes to burglary codes but this will not affect the data included.

Police recorded theft

We are exploring the potential to include further years of data (previously 2-year averages) to improve data robustness. There are proposals to include some further theft codes in this indicator.

Police recorded criminal damage

We are exploring the potential to include further years of data (previously 2-year averages) to improve data robustness.

Police recorded violent crime

We are exploring the potential to include further years of data (previously 2-year averages) to improve data robustness. It is proposed that stalking and coercion be included in this indicator. We are also investigating the suitability of replacing the police recorded violent crime indicator with component indicators covering different aspects of violent crime such as ‘violence without injury’, ‘homicide and violence with injury’ and ‘stalking and coercive control’. Each of these categories of violent crime typically contain high volumes of crime relative to other crime categories, such as ‘burglary.’

Anti-social behaviour

We plan to update this indicator, subject to quality assurance checks on the police recorded data.

Fire incidences

We are investigating whether a move to 3 year average as opposed to the 2 year average used previously would provide more robust estimates.

Police recorded sexual offences

We are considering the inclusion of sexual offences as a new indicator in this domain. The source is police recorded crime and would be included on the same basis as the other police recorded data within this domain.

Outstanding issues

As noted above, we are still exploring the reference periods to use, the inclusion of some additional offences under existing indicators, and a new proposal for sexual offences. Final weighting decisions for the domain are outstanding.

Other indicators to consider in future

Responses to the survey indicate that hate crime and substance misuse should be reconsidered in future iterations of WIMD. While we have found these to be unsuitable for WIMD 2025, we will note them for consideration in future iterations of the index.

Changes to proposals after survey feedback or recent work

We note the overall support for this domain’s proposals. In addition to the proposed changes, we are investigating the suitability of replacing the police recorded violent crime indicator with component indicators covering different aspects of violent crime such as ‘violence crime without injury’, ‘homicide and violence with injury’ and ‘stalking and coercive control’. Each of these categories of violent crime typically contain high volumes of crime relative to other crime categories, such as ‘burglary'.

The purpose of this domain is to measure factors in the local area that may impact on the wellbeing or quality of life of those living in that area.

Responses to specific questions

Question 25: Please rate the relevance to the physical environment domain of the potential new indicator on heat risk.

The majority of respondents thought that the proposed heat risk indicator was at least somewhat relevant to the physical environment domain. This was made up of 6 people (30% of total respondents) choosing the ‘highly relevant’ option, and 10 people (50% of total respondents) choosing the ‘somewhat relevant’ option.

Three people thought that the indicator was neither relevant nor not relevant to the domain, while 1 person thought that heat risk was not at all relevant to the domain. Nine people skipped this question.

Question 26: Please rate the relevance to the physical environment domain of the potential new indicator on noise pollution.

Similar to the feedback for the heat risk indicator, the majority of respondents thought the proposed noise pollution indicator was at least somewhat relevant to the overall domain. 4 people (22% of total respondents) thought it was highly relevant, while 11 people (61% of total respondents) selected ‘somewhat relevant’.

One person thought the indicator was neither relevant nor not relevant to the overall domain, and 2 people selected the ‘not at all relevant’ option. Eleven people skipped this question.

Question 27: Please explain your rationale for the above responses and provide any other comments on the proposals for the physical environment domain.

Heat risk

Responses suggested that in general, people would support the inclusion of heat risk within the physical environment domain. A couple of respondents highlighted the relevance of this indicator to vulnerable populations, including older adults and low income households, who can be affected by climate risks, such as heatwaves and inadequate housing insulation.

However, feedback also suggested that heat risk is unlikely to be a significant factor in Wales for a few years and may only be relevant to the above specific groups or areas. One respondent mentioned that although they would support the inclusion of the indicator, it is important to make sure that the data meets the indicator criteria, as set out in the proposals report.

Due to the timescales required to deliver WIMD 2025, the decision has been made to continue exploring this indicator for potential inclusion in the next iteration of WIMD rather than in 2025.

Noise pollution

Most people agreed that this indicator was relevant to the physical environment domain, with respondents showing an interest in which areas would be more proportionately impacted by road, rail or industry noise. Data quality was mentioned in the feedback, asking what aspects of noise pollution would be included within the indicator, and noting that the data should meet the WIMD indicator criteria. Update frequency was also mentioned in the feedback, with one respondent asking for this work to be repeated, and one noting that the data may be outdated by the next iteration of WIMD. Other feedback suggested that it may be difficult to produce a figure for a whole LSOA.

Following the feedback on this indicator, we have decided to include this proposed indicator in WIMD 2025, subject to the data meeting the WIMD indicator criteria. Work to assess suitability of this data for WIMD 2025 is ongoing.

Other comments

As outlined above, there was general support for all proposed indicators to be included in this domain.

One respondent commented that access to outside spaces is an important indicator especially taking people’s mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic into account.

Summary of indicators for WIMD 2025

Flood risk

We plan to update the proportion of households at risk of flooding indicator using May 2025 data.

Air quality

We plan to update the three indicators (Nitrogen Dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5) making up the sub-domain using 2023 data.

Ambient green space

We propose to update the ambient green space indicator. We are exploring updating this indicator using Planet Fusion satellite imagery, replacing the aerial photography-derived ambient green space scores used in WIMD 2019. This is due to differences in the satellite sensors compared to aircraft mounted cameras, and resolution of the resultant imagery available.

Proximity to accessible, natural green space

We propose to update the indicator on proximity to accessible natural green space and include national long distance trails in the destinations dataset.

Potential new indicators

We are exploring a noise pollution indicator which would measure noise pollution from road, rail, and industry based on 2022 strategic noise maps.

Outstanding issues

Analysis of the noise pollution dataset to ensure suitability for WIMD is ongoing. It is intended that the 24 hour average sound level with extra weighting given to nighttime periods (denoted Lden) will form the metric used for this indicator. Final weighting decisions for the domain are outstanding.

Other indicators to consider in future

Responses to the survey indicate that heat hazard would be a valuable addition to the domain, however it will not be possible to include for this iteration of WIMD. We intend to continue exploring this dataset, and others relating to the impact of climate change, for a future WIMD update.

Changes to proposals after survey feedback or recent work

The proposal to include an indicator on heat hazard score will not be progressed for this iteration of WIMD.

Responses to specific consultation questions

Q28: Please rank, in priority order in terms of what would add the most value to the index, the proposed new indicators for inclusion in WIMD 2025.

Respondents were asked to rank the following indicators (no particular order):

• Childhood vaccinations uptake
• Dental health
• Travel times to childcare services
• Dwellings with poor energy performance
• Housing affordability
• Police recorded sexual offences
• Heat hazard score
• Noise pollution

A total of 22 respondents answered this question, with 7 respondents skipping.

The relative ranking of proposed indicators does not necessarily mean that those indicators ranked lower are unsuitable for WIMD but may suggest which indicators are considered relatively higher priority by WIMD users.

[Note 1] The ‘total score’ is assigned in reverse based on the ranking given by each respondent. For example, a ranking of 1 would add a score of 8 to that indicator while a ranking of 8 would add a score of 1.

Based on the 22 responses to this question, the indicator with the highest priority ranking for inclusion in WIMD 2025 was housing affordability. This was closely followed by the childhood vaccinations uptake and dwellings with poor energy performance indicators, which only scored slightly less than housing affordability.

Question 29: Please explain your rationale for your above ranking and provide any other comments on proposed new indicators for inclusion in WIMD 2025.

Higher priority indicators

As seen in the summary, proposed housing indicators were highly valued by the 22 respondents for inclusion in WIMD 2025. Various respondents described both the housing affordability and dwellings with poor energy performance indicators as important, and likely to most reflect the impact of deprivation when considering the cost-of-living crisis. One respondent said they ranked these highly due to a perceived weakness in the housing domain, which the inclusion of these proposed indicators would strengthen.

Other comments advised caution around definitions and data quality for these indicators, as expanded on in the earlier section on housing.

A couple of respondents noted that the ranking of potential indicators was a challenging task, prone to subjectivity, and that data quality will ultimately determine if indicators are included or not.

Lower priority indicators

A couple of people expressed concerns with dental health as a proposal, due to the uneven distribution of NHS dental care across Wales. Individual responses also raised some issues with proposals for access to childcare services, noise pollution, and heat hazard, as expanded on in earlier domain chapters.

However, one respondent did note that all the proposed indicators were useful and that a low ranking does not necessarily indicate that it should not be included in WIMD 2025.

Alternative suggestions

One respondent thought that access to social care should be considered, and another suggested a ‘travel time to place of work’ indicator.

Responses to specific consultation questions

Question 30: Please provide any comments on the proposed approach to weighting domains for WIMD 2025.

Due to other weighting questions being present throughout the survey, some of the below responses are taken from earlier sections in the survey relating to specific domains and have been combined with responses to this question.

Some respondents thought that the weightings should remain the same as for WIMD 2019, and a couple commented that it would only be possible to form a full answer to question 30 once the indicators have been fully determined. The below summarises other responses that suggested changes to domain weightings for WIMD 2025. Views were mixed on this topic.

Suggested increases

Several respondents believed the housing domain should see an increase in weighting for WIMD 2025. They mentioned the increasing relevance of the housing domain to deprivation, with one respondent suggesting the weighting be as high as 12% to 15%. However, some suggested an increase for housing should depend on proposed indicators for housing affordability and dwellings with poor energy performance being fully developed and included in WIMD 2025.

Some respondents believed that the weighting for access to services should be increased. Although not many reasons were given as to why, the main opinions stated that having access to services has become more relevant to deprivation and that 10% (the WIMD 2019 weight) was too low for the domain.

During discussion at one of the webinars held, a participant commented that the physical environment weighting seems low considering increasing importance of environmental impacts.

A couple of respondents also thought that the income domain should increase weighting compared to WIMD 2019. This was due to it being seen as the strongest domain in relation to others. However, those who suggested an increase for income proposed a decrease in the employment domain, as mentioned below.

Suggested decreases

The main domain for which respondents suggested a decrease in weighting was employment. Largely, this was to allow for increases in other domains that respondents thought had grown in importance, such as health, education and housing. Other respondents thought the employment domain should be lower than the income domain, which would allow for either a slight increase in the income domain, or in currently lower valued domains. Respondents who provided values for suggested weights gave employment between 17% to 20%.

We acknowledge the broad support shown for our proposals and will consider the specific comments when deciding precise weights. This will be done in discussion with the WIMD advisory groups. Decisions will be based on the data quality of each indicator once known (some are currently under development), as well as the conceptual importance of each in relation to deprivation. We will publish information on our rationale for the final WIMD 2025 weights.

Responses to specific consultation questions

Question 31: Please indicate in the table below how frequently, if at all, you have used the following outputs.

Respondents were asked whether they use very often, use sometimes, rarely use, or have never used the following outputs:

• Guidance report
• Technical report
• Guide to analysing indicator data
• Results report
• Report on deprivation analysis relating to children
• Report on deprivation indicators for areas of deep-rooted deprivation
• Analysis of population characteristics by area deprivation (Census 2021)
• Index and domain ranks by small area (spreadsheet version)

Full results are shown in Figure 1 of annex 2.

In total, 21 respondents answered this question. Some of the 21 respondents did not answer for all of the outputs, and the lowest number of respondents for an output was 18. The following summary will be compared using percentages to account for the differences in number of respondents per output. Eight respondents skipped the question entirely.

The output with the highest percentage of ‘very often’ users was the index and domain ranks by small area (spreadsheet version), with 50% of respondents saying they use this very often. This was followed closely by the StatsWales version of the index and domain ranks by small area (45%), “Analysis of population characteristics by area deprivation (Census 2021)” (37%), the interactive mapping tool (35%) and the indicator data by small area and larger geographies (35%).

When including outputs that respondents said they use sometimes or more often, the results report also came out as a popular output (60% use this sometimes, 25% use this very often). The guide to analysing indicator data and the guidance report also had very high percentages of respondents saying they use these sometimes (both 75%) but not very many who use these very often (5% each).

There were 2 outputs where no respondents said they had never used them – the “Analysis of population characteristics by area deprivation (Census 2021)” (21% rarely use, 42% use sometimes, 37% use very often), and the guide to analysing indicator data (20% rarely use, 75% use sometimes, 5% use very often). However, both of these outputs received responses from only 19 and 20 respondents respectively (out of the total 21 who responded to the question), and those who would have never used may have not answered for that output instead.

The outputs with the highest percentage of respondents who said they had never used them were the WIMD geospatial information on DataMapWales, and the static LSOA domain maps (both 25%).

Question 32: To what extent would you like to see these products produced again for WIMD 2025?

The listed outputs were the same as for question 31. Full results are shown in figure 2 of annex 2.

A total of 20 respondents answered this question, with 9 skipping the question entirely. As with question 31, not all of the 20 respondents answered for every single output, so there are differences in the number of respondents per output, with the lowest being 16. Again, the below summary accounts for these differences.

For all outputs, the majority of respondents said that they would like to see the same outputs produced again for WIMD 2025. The output with the highest percentage of respondents who said this was the results report (95%), closely followed by the index and domain ranks by small area (94%). Many other outputs also received high levels of support for being updated, and the full table of results can be seen in annex 2.

Relative to the other outputs, a fairly high percentage of people said they would like to see the report on deprivation indicators for areas of deep-rooted deprivation (18%) and the interactive mapping tool (16%) again, but in a different format. Only one output had no respondents who wanted it in a different format, which was the index and domain ranks by small area.

29% of respondents said they do not use the indicator data by small area and larger geographies, which was the highest percentage of respondents for any output. 24% of respondents said they did not use the report on deprivation analysis relating to children, the deprivation profiles for larger geographies, and the indicator data split by age.

Question 33: Please explain your rationale for the above responses and let us know if you have any other comments or suggestions relating to outputs in WIMD 2025.

There were 10 responses to this question each with a different focus. Most respondents focused on explaining their rationale for previous responses and their views on specific outputs. Some respondents also provided comments for potential improvements regarding the outputs; these either related to existing outputs or suggested new outputs.

Comments on existing outputs and usage

Overall, the responses indicate that users are satisfied with the outputs that are already produced and there is demand for many of them to be updated. Two respondents highlighted that they believe all outputs have some value. One respondent also stated that even though many of the outputs are used infrequently, they are all valuable in the work they are used for. One respondent did view some of the outputs as being used too infrequently to be updated. However, this respondent did not explicitly state which ones and acknowledged that they may be used more in future.

Of the existing outputs, the geographical or spatial outputs, for example the interactive mapping tool, lookups and static LSOA domain maps, were given the most attention. The mapping tool was mentioned by 2 respondents and considered highly valuable by both. One of these respondents highlighted the tool as being useful for helping their users understand deprivation across different domains. This respondent was also keen for further improvements to the functionality of the interactive mapping tool by allowing side-by-side comparisons of domain rankings.

The postcode lookup was also mentioned by 2 respondents and was considered valuable. One respondent mentioned that even though the WIMD postcode lookups are not used directly for their work, they are vital for monitoring health outcomes. Another respondent mentioned that they would have used the postcode lookup (and other outputs, not specified) if they were aware of it.

Two respondents mentioned the indicator datasets. Again, interest in geographical or spatial outputs was highlighted, with 1 of the respondents asking for the indicator data to be available in a geospatial format on DataMapWales. The other respondent found that some of the indicator datasets can be confusing.

General comments and new outputs

Several individual respondents made comments or suggestions requesting:

• More interactive datasets and spatial analysis.
• An output comparing values for WIMD 2025 with WIMD 2019.
• Longitudinal data.
• Consideration of WIMD outputs in the design and implementation of the new StatsWales system.
• That we exercise caution around age-related artefacts in the data.
• For outputs to be published in 2025 without delay to 2026.

We’d like to flag that our has a longitudinal element, as it examines areas that have remained in a relatively highly deprived group for several iterations of the index.

We note that respondents were broadly content with the range of WIMD outputs form 2019. We will take account of this and of specific priorities and suggestions given when compiling a dissemination plan for WIMD 2025.

Organisations responding to WIMD survey

Note that some organisations had multiple respondents.

• BCU Local Public Health Team
• Building Communities Trust
• Cardiff Council
• Carmarthenshire County Council
• CIH Cymru
• Cyngor Gwynedd
• Data Cymru
• Equality and Human Rights Commission
  Groundwork North Wales
• Home-start Cymru
• Keep Wales Tidy
• Monmouthshire County Council (organisation-wide response)
• Newport City Council
• Powys County Council Housing Service
• Public Health Wales NHS Trust
• Rhondda Cynon Taf Council
• Swansea Council (organisation-wide response)
• Transport for Wales
• Urdd Gobaith Cymru
• �ʶ����� Government
• Wrexham County Borough Council
• 4 individual responses with no known organisation

Figure 1: Frequency of usage of each WIMD output

Image

Description of Figure 1: A bar chart showing how often respondents reported using WIMD outputs, as summarised in the earlier section on WIMD outputs.

Figure 2: Views on the format of each WIMD output

Image

Description of Figure 2: A bar chart showing respondents’ views on the format of WIMD outputs, as summarised in the earlier section on WIMD outputs.

Statistician: Nia Jones
Email: stats.inclusion@gov.wales

Media: 0300 025 8099