Dear Sir or Madam,

Please can you let me have copies of documents that explain why an
index of family breakdown was omitted from the list of
neighbourhood deprivation indices when the Social Exclusion Unit
had listed family breakdown as one of the eight indicators.

Yours faithfully,

Nick Gulliford

Dear Mr Gulliford

Thank you for your request of 8th May 2009 seeking information about the Indices of Deprivation <<accesstoinfo-leaflet.pdf>> . <<Mr N Gulliford FOI acknowledgement.doc>>

Please see the attached acknowledgement letter.

Yours sincerely

John Flett

John Flett
Regeneration Performance & Digital Inclusion Division
Dept. Communities & Local Government
Zone 3/J10
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Tel: 020 7944 8752
please consider the environment - do you really need to print this e-mail ?

show quoted sections

Mr Gulliford,

Please find our reply to your FOI request attached.

<<IMD FOI Request F0003118 June09.doc>>

Regards,
Guy

Guy Weir
Regeneration Performance and Digital Inclusion Division
CLG
020 7944 6382

show quoted sections

Dear Guy Weir,

Thank you for your response F0003118.

I confess I am puzzled by it as I have been writing on the subject
of neighbourhood statistics to various departments of government
for a long time. Each time my efforts seem to run into the sand.

By way of illustration I am reproducing a response sent to me in
September 2000:

"From: Patel Atul - Social Exclusion Unit - [mailto:[email
address]]
Sent: 05 September 2000 18:06
To: '[email address]'
Cc: '[email address]'; Dollamore Gillian - SEU -; Batten Russell
-SEU
Subject: Poverty & Deprivation - SEU PAT 18 - Marriage & Divorce
statistics

Dear Mr Gulliford,

Dr Mowlam's office has passed your e-mail to us in, the Social
Exclusion Unit, for reply.

Thank you for your comments of support about PAT 18's conclusions.
On the two specific points you make, I should point out that the
intention is very much about making sure that everyone who needs
neighbourhood-level data should have access to it including
individual residents, representative groups and, of course the
voluntary sector. And that access to it should be as hassle free as
possible.

We could have included much more in the list of Neighbourhood
Statistics. Marriage and divorce statistics were considered. But we
had to be selective and undertake some initial prioritisation. We
also knew that there were many other datasets we would dearly wish
to have included. But the point of the report was to illustrate
what could be done for neighbourhood renewal with a more restricted
list; to then consult widely to see whether there is broad
agreement; and to enable Government to be informed about how the
development of Neighbourhood Statistics should be prioritised. This
does not preclude adding further datasets as time goes on.

It was also important, through the PAT 18 report, to get a wider
sign up to the need for small area data in principle. Without it,
the more detailed developments you describe could not get very far.
In the long term, and with the benefit of 2001 census Output data,
I am sure further datasets would be included.

Despite the fact that consultation has now closed, I am copying
your material, and this reply, to Dev Virdee who heads the team in
ONS dedicated to the practical implementation of most of PAT 18's
recommendations (the SEU's involvement will reduce as the
conclusion of the strategy development process nears). I am sure he
will find it helpful, and you may wish to take up more detailed
issues with him in due course.

Atul Patel
Deputy Director, SEU"

I have written many times since on this subject, to no avail.

If it is still the case that, "the intention is very much about
making sure that everyone who needs neighbourhood-level data should
have access to it including individual residents, representative
groups and, of course the voluntary sector. And that access to it
should be as hassle free as possible", please could you let me know
to whom to write?

Yours sincerely,

Nick Gulliford

Mr Gulliford,

CLG used to work in partnership with ONS on the development phase of Neighbourhood Statistics. This development phase ended in March 2006. We still work closely with ONS as a key policy customer, but they run the NeSS service and are ultimately responsible for its content.

CLG is responsible for the production of the Indices of Deprivation, which has been published both on our own website and on NeSS.

Any questions you have relating to the small area statistics held on NeSS should be directed at ONS, anything relating to the Indices of Deprivation should be directed to us.

Please note that we are soon to embark on the production of a new Indices of Deprivation, and as part of that process will hold a public consultation on our update proposals. This is likely to be the end of this year.

Regards,
Guy Weir.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Weir,

Thank you for your reply of 19th June.

It sounds like a perfect 'Sir Humphrey Appleby' recipe for the
continuing suppression of information!

The fact is when the Social Exclusion Unit listed 8 indicators of
deprivation and the ONS subsequently published 7 indices of
deprivation plus a multiple index, it omitted 'family breakdown'
from the neighbourhood statistics and indices without any
explanation for the omission.

The effect of this omission is that whereas other changes over time
in different aspects of deprivation can be measured by
neighbourhood and the impact of programmes and polices evaluated,
'domestic and social cohesion' cannot be measured because the
figures have been suppressed.

It helps to perpetuate the myth that family breakdown is a
consequence of deprivation, not a cause, despite the findings of
the SEU.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Gulliford