Ruth Harrell (Consultant in Public Health) introduced the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2025 Update and discussed:

a)     That the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) was a core dataset used across the health and wellbeing system, noting that multiple health indicators across Plymouth mapped closely onto deprivation patterns, such as childhood obesity and long?term health conditions;

b)    That IMD was periodically reviewed and updated, and although the city’s relative position usually remained stable, the 2025 release contained methodological changes which had prompted additional analytical work;

c)     That the IMD was composed of seven weighted domains: Income, Employment, Education, Health, Crime, Barriers to Housing and Services, and Living Environment. These domains had changed significantly since 2019, meaning the datasets were not directly comparable;

d)    That several indicators had been updated, including the inclusion of persistent school absence post?pandemic, changes to indoor environment metrics (where EPC ratings now constituted 70% of the domain), and removal of central heating access as an indicator due to near-universal coverage;

e)     That these changes materially affected Plymouth’s apparent level of deprivation, requiring cautious interpretation of the results.

Ellie Pullin (Population Health Intelligence Apprentice) presented the analytical findings and discussed:

f)      That Plymouth had moved from 64th most deprived (of 317 authorities) in 2019 to 87th (of 296 authorities) in 2025, appearing to show a significant improvement in ranking;

g)     That Plymouth’s most deprived Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) remained in St Peter and the Waterfront, which had stayed in the 1% most deprived nationally for over ten years, with a population of 1,843 residents;

h)    That Plymouth’s least deprived LSOA remained in Plymstock Dunstone and had done so consistently for the past decade;

i)      That 11.7% of Plymouth’s LSOAs were within the most deprived 10% nationally, representing approximately 32,000 residents, a reduction from 17.4% in 2019;

j)      That six LSOAs sat within the most deprived 5%, and 42 LSOAs were within the most deprived 20%, which were areas that could easily shift into more severe deprivation or might improve over time;

k)     That Plymouth had made one of the most substantial relative improvements among the Key Cities group, and similar gains were observed when benchmarked against the SIGMA Group of comparable urban authorities;

l)      That improvements in the Living Environment domain were strongly influenced by methodological changes, especially the reduced weighting given to access to private outdoor space.

Ruth Harrell (Consultant in Public Health) added:

m)   That despite Plymouth’s improved ranking, poverty had not reduced, and in some cases had worsened, particularly affecting children;

n)    That updated data on absolute and relative child poverty showed increases in both measures over recent years, with Plymouth’s rates consistently above the England average;

o)    That the Board should remain cautious. While the IMD ranking improved, the lived reality for families did not align with this shift, and it was important not to misinterpret the data as an indication of substantive socioeconomic improvement;

p)    That multiple datasets, including ward?level poverty, continued to map onto historical patterns of deprivation, including high deprivation in St Peter and the Waterfront, Ham, Devonport, Honicknowle and St Budeaux.

In response to questions, the Board discussed:

q)    That methodological changes in the IMD had contributed to improved rankings, including the national rollout of Universal Credit affecting the Income domain;

r)     Concern over the external messaging. If IMD figures were misinterpreted, Plymouth risked appearing less in need of funding and support, despite increasing child poverty and worsening financial hardship;

s)     Members sought clarity over what messaging should be shared locally and nationally, noting the potential impact on resource allocation;

t)     Members wished to emphasise that any “improvement” was statistical rather than experiential, and should not reduce focus on tackling inequalities;

u)    That there was a need to identify genuine areas where improvements had occurred over the last six years, alongside areas where circumstances had worsened;

v)     That comparative analysis with Exeter demonstrated clear differences in deprivation trajectories between the two cities;

w)   That the ‘State of the City’ report was currently being prepared and would take a broader look across living conditions, health, and wellbeing, with a draft expected mid?February for future HWB consideration;

x)    That wellbeing hubs were working to enhance their data reporting however, data systems varied widely across hubs and agencies, making unified analysis challenging;

y)     That councillors required improved access to ward?level deprivation data and maps to support local leadership, and that updated mapping on the council website would support ward?level interpretation;

z)     That the potential removal of the two?child limit would positively impact child poverty rates in Plymouth, given the high number of affected families;

aa)  Members raised the importance of connecting with relevant academic expertise to explore whether IMD changes aligned with health outcomes or undermined accurate representation of deprivation;

bb)Members noted significant concerns arising from BMI data for children aged 4–11, particularly the high proportion of reception?aged children entering school at unhealthy weight levels, and the importance of continued work with schools to address this;

cc)  That despite the concerns, Plymouth performed marginally better than England in flow from healthy to unhealthy weight, though overall levels remained concerning.

Action: The Public Health Intelligence Team would explore mechanisms for improved dissemination of updated ward?level IMD and poverty data to councillors, including through refreshed online mapping tools;

Action: The Public Health Intelligence Team would incorporate IMD 2025 analysis into the forthcoming State of the City report and bring this to a future meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board;

The Board agreed:

1. To note the IMD 2025 report and, in particular, that the apparent improvement in deprivation ranking reflected methodological changes rather than a reduction in underlying poverty in Plymouth.