Source · Select Committees · Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation 16
16
DLUHC's decision to abandon IMD and use unclear data metrics is problematic.
Conclusion
The Index for Multiple Deprivation (IMD) has for a long time been widely considered to be the most efficient way of determining ‘need’. As such, we do not agree with the DLUHC’s decision to move away from the use of the long established IMD to determine priority areas one to three. We acknowledge that the DLUHC changed its use of metrics in the second round of the Levelling Up Fund. Nevertheless, it is still not clear what data sets were used for the amended process in round two or why they sought such a complicated process for round one, when local authorities have ample access to data and arguably understand their areas best. (Paragraph 63) Funding for Levelling Up 39
Government Response
A response document is linked to this report, dated 26 October 2023. Response attribution to this conclusion has not been verified. Read the response document ↗