The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is one of the most commonly used datasets in funding applications.
This guide sets out how to use the IMD effectively, providing suggestions for different ways to interpret and communicate the data to support a stronger, evidence-based case for funding.
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is the official measure of deprivation in England, making it a trusted and widely understood source of evidence. Funders are familiar with it and often expect to see it included, so referencing IMD in funding bids immediately adds credibility to your application.
A key strength of the IMD is that it allows you to compare areas consistently across England. This means you can clearly demonstrate how your target area performs relative to others nationally, providing a clear, benchmarked justification of need.
For example:
“The project focuses on neighbourhoods within the 10% most deprived areas in England.”
The IMD combines seven domains of deprivation, including income, employment, health, education, crime, housing, and the living environment.
This makes it a multi-dimensional measure, particularly useful for funding bids addressing complex or overlapping challenges.
Context is critical. Rather than presenting IMD data in isolation, show how your area compares:
This helps highlight pockets of deprivation, even in otherwise less deprived areas, and strengthens your case.
You may also be interested in our guide to identifying the most deprived neighbourhoods in your region.
IMD deciles are an accessible way to communicate deprivation. An IMD decile is a way of grouping small areas in England into 10 equal-sized bands based on their level of deprivation.
The IMD, gives each small area a rank. These ranks are then divided into 10 groups, known as deciles, with decile 1 comprising the most deprived 10% of areas and decile 10 the least deprived 10% of areas.
We have a full resource explaining IMD deciles here.
Where possible and if relevant to your bid, consider how deprivation has changed. While the IMD is a relative measure, comparing different releases (e.g. 2015 vs 2019 vs 2025) can help you understand whether an area is becoming more or less deprived relative to others, showing an understanding of direction of travel as well as current need.
Key questions to explore include:
This can help support your narrative about the neighbourhoods you are working in, whether that is highlighting a worsening position, persistent deprivation or widening gaps within the local context.
For example, you could use relative change over time to highlight that, while deprivation levels in the local authority have remained relatively stable overall, the neighbourhood you are targeting has become more deprived relative to others – indicating a widening gap in the area.
As the IMD is a relative measure, changes don’t always mean conditions have improved or worsened in absolute terms. It’s good practice to acknowledge this to show understanding of the nuances of the data.
Most notably, when exploring changes in deprivation between versions of the Indices, changes can only be described in relative terms, for example, the extent to which an area has changed rank or decile of deprivation between the current and previous Indices. Moreover, any changes in relative deprivation between 2025 and previous Indices should be considered in the context of the changes to the methodology, geography and component indicators that have occurred between different versions of the Indices. Therefore some of the observed changes may be due to changes to the measurement approach introduced, rather than real differences within areas.
If your bid allows, include simple visuals such as:
Visuals can make complex data more accessible and help funders quickly grasp the scale and location of need.
Looking beyond the overall IMD score allows you to uncover a more nuanced picture of deprivation. While an area might fall within, for example, the 20% most deprived overall, it may experience much more acute challenges in specific domains.
A useful approach is to identify whether your area consistently ranks highly across multiple domains, or whether there are particular domains that stand out.
This can support your narrative by demonstrating multiple and compounding needs, highlighting domains that align with your project and identify hidden needs that may be masked by the overall IMD.
Similarly you can look at the other domains to identify the driver of need. By this we mean specifically looking at the domain(s) with the lowest rank so you can see which one is driving the overall IMD rank.
Ensure you are using the latest available IMD release. Referencing outdated data can weaken your credibility.
The IMD measures relative deprivation, not absolute levels of need.
This means you should avoid phrasing such as “deprivation has increased in this area” unless it is supported by additional evidence (which we come to in the next section!).
IMD is most meaningful at small area level (LSOA). Using larger geographies (e.g. whole local authorities) can mask significant variation and hide pockets of deprivation.
If you do need to provide context for the whole local authority, look at the neighbourhoods within the local authority and how deprivation is distributed rather than providing one figure for the local authority. If you are stuck on how to do this, our On Demand reports provide this breakdown alongside many other indicators, which brings us on to our next section…
While the IMD is a strong starting point, it should not be your only source of evidence. On its own, it cannot fully capture local need or service demand.
Strengthen your bid by combining IMD with other data sources, such as:
This is often easier said than done as relevant data is often spread across multiple sources, geographies, and formats. Bringing this together into a clear narrative can be time-consuming and is a common challenge when developing funding bids.
For charities, the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is one of the…
More
If you work with deprivation data, you have probably seen places described…
More
The Community Needs Index (CNI) was first developed in 2018 through a…
More
