Indices of Deprivation 2025: Bromley
by Jocelyne Noubiap
21 January 2026
Introduction
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is essential for identifying where socio-economic disadvantage is most concentrated and ensuring resources and interventions are directed to the areas of greatest need [1]. A Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) is a small, standardised neighbourhood-sized area, typically 1,000 to 3,000 people [6]. In England, there are 33,755 LSOAs. These LSOAs were created by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to measure local population and deprivation consistently. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 2025 IMD for Bromley, highlighting patterns of deprivation across the 199 LSOAs in the borough.
The IMD is a composite measure that ranks LSOAs in England based on seven domains: Income, Employment, Education, Health, Crime, Barriers to Housing and Services, and Living Environment. Understanding these domains and their distribution is essential for identifying areas of greatest need and informing targeted interventions. This analysis provides a summary of key findings for Bromley, relative to London and England.
How can the Indices of Deprivation be used?
Indices of Deprivation (IoD) can be used to identify where deprivation is highest, explore the different domains of deprivation, compare larger administrative areas such as local authorities, and examine changes in relative deprivation over time by looking at shifts in ranks, deciles or quintiles. Crucially, the IoD does not measure absolute deprivation and cannot quantify how deprived a place is, identify deprived individuals, indicate how affluent an area may be, or be used to compare areas with those in other UK countries, which use different deprivation measures [2]. Changes between iterations should therefore be interpreted as relative movement compared to other areas, rather than absolute improvement or deterioration, and always considered alongside local context and wider evidence.
Index of Multiple Deprivation
Bromley is generally considered one of the less deprived boroughs in comparison to the rest of London; however, pockets of deprivation exist within specific Bromley wards. Figures 1 and 2 show the IMD distribution across Bromley’s LSOAs, relative to regional and national patterns. When examining IMD deciles (10 bands) most neighbourhoods appear in shades of green, meaning they fall into the least deprived categories nationally. Hidden within this overall favourable relative position are noticeable areas in red and orange in the north and northeast of the borough [1,3].
Areas such as Crystal Palace & Anerley, St Paul’s Cray and St Mary’s Cray rank among the 10% most deprived in England, while surrounding wards like Penge & Cator and Mottingham show moderate levels of deprivation.
Grouping the data into quintiles (five bands instead of ten) adds further context. Most of Bromley sits in the least deprived 40% nationally (Quintiles 4 and 5), reinforcing its relative position as a less deprived borough. However, the same hot-spots persist, with neighbourhoods in Crystal Palace & Anerley, St Paul’s Cray and St Mary’s Cray falling into Quintile 1, the most deprived 20% of areas in England. These neighbourhoods face multiple challenges, from income and employment to health and housing, suggesting that deprivation in Bromley is highly localised.
Change from IMD19
Figure 3 shows that the overall pattern in 2019 was similar to 2025. Neighbourhoods in Crystal Palace & Anerley, St Paul’s and St Mary Cray were among the most deprived (decile 1) in England in 2019. Surrounding areas like Penge & Cator, Mottingham, and parts of Orpington were in deciles 2-4, with moderate deprivation. Southern wards such as Darwin, Biggin Hill, and Chelsfield were in deciles 8-10 (least deprived in England).
Parts of Darwin and Chislehurst have shifted into less deprived deciles, indicating relative improvement. This improvement suggests that while deprivation is sustained in some neighbourhoods, others are moving in the right direction (Figures 1 and 3).
Figure 3: IMD Deciles by LSOA, 2019
Between 2019 and 2025, Bromley’s relative deprivation profile improved overall (Figure 4). The proportion of neighbourhoods in the least deprived quintile rose from 38.7% to 44.2%, while the most deprived quintile roughly remained the same [1, 3, 9]. This indicates that relative to other areas nationally and while sustained deprivation persists in a few northern wards, the borough as a whole is becoming relatively less deprived when compared to other areas nationally over time. Most changes occurred in the middle quintiles, with several areas moving up into Quintile 5. However, such changes should be interpreted as relative rather than absolute improvements[2,5].These trends highlight the importance of sustaining progress while focusing targeted interventions on the small number of neighbourhoods that remain among the most deprived nationally.
Figure 4: Change in IMD quintile from 2019 to 2025
Domains of Deprivation
The IMD is derived from a weighted combination of seven separate indices, known as the domains of deprivation. These domains and their respective weights are: Income (22.5%), Employment (22.5%), Education (13.5%), Health (13.5%), Crime (9.3%), Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%), and Living Environment (9.3%).
Income Deprivation
Income deprivation reflects the proportion of people experiencing financial hardship, including those reliant on benefits or low-income employment [2,3]. Figure 5 shows the most deprived areas ranking among the 10% most income-deprived areas nationally are concentrated in Crystal Palace & Anerley in the Northwest and St Paul’s Cray and St Mary Cray in the north-east, indicating notable economic vulnerability. Surrounding wards such as Penge & Cator, Mottingham, and parts of Orpington fall into Deciles 2-4, reflecting moderate deprivation.
Southern wards like Darwin, Biggin Hill, and Chelsfield are in Deciles 7-10, placing them among the least deprived nationally. This pattern reveals a pronounced north-south divide, with deprivation concentrated in urban northern wards and lower levels of deprivation in rural southern areas, with one exception in Farnborough & Crofton (central), which has a neighbourhood in Decile 1.
A similar pattern is shown in the quintile breakdown (Figure 6). The most income-deprived 20% include Crystal Palace & Anerley, St Paul’s Cray, and St Mary Cray. Meanwhile, the least income-deprived 40% dominate the south and much of the central wards, reinforcing Bromley’s relative position as a less deprived borough. These findings underline that income deprivation in Bromley is highly localised, requiring targeted interventions in the most affected neighbourhoods rather than borough-wide approaches.
Employment Deprivation
Employment deprivation measures involuntary exclusion from the labour market due to unemployment, illness, or disability [2,3]. Bromley’s overall employment deprivation shows that neighbourhoods in the most deprived 10% in England are concentrated in St Paul’s Cray, St Mary Cray, Crystal Palace & Anerley (Figure 7). Some neighbourhoods in Bromley Common & Holwood, Mottingham, Farnborough & Crofton and Orpington are in the least deprived 20% nationally (Figure 8). These neighbourhoods face considerable barriers to work, including limited job opportunities and health-related constraints.
Darwin, Biggin Hill, and Chelsfield are among the least deprived 20% nationally for employment (Figure 8). These areas likely benefit from higher employment rates and better access to economic opportunities. This also highlights a north-south divide, with urban northern wards experiencing higher employment deprivation while rural southern wards remain more affluent. Persistent deprivation in Quintile 1 areas suggests the need for targeted job access programs, skills training, and integrated health support, rather than borough-wide strategies.
Education, Skills and Training
Education deprivation captures low educational attainment and skills among children and adults [2,3]. In Bromley, disparities are evident, with St Paul’s Cray and parts of Penge & Cator ranking among the more deprived areas nationally for education, skills and training. These patterns indicate intergenerational challenges that could impact long-term economic resilience, emphasising the importance of early years support and adult learning opportunities.
Looking across quintiles provides further insight, with clear hotspots and areas of relative advantage. The most deprived neighbourhoods (Quintile 1) include Darwin, St Paul’s Cray and St Mary Cray, as well as Mottingham in the north, indicating considerable challenges in school attainment and adult qualifications. Other areas like Biggin Hill, Crystal Palace & Anerley, Mottingham, and parts of Orpington fall into Quintile 2, showing moderate deprivation. Contrastingly, central and northern wards such as Chislehurst, Bickley, and Shortlands are in Quintiles 4 and 5, among the least deprived nationally. Unlike income and employment deprivation, which are concentrated in the north, education deprivation shows pockets in both urban and rural areas, highlighting the need for targeted interventions such as early years support, school improvement, and adult skills programs.
Health Deprivation and Disability
Health deprivation reflects morbidity, disability, and premature mortality [2,3]. The highest levels of health deprivation (Deciles 1-2) are concentrated in the north-east around St Paul’s Cray and St Mary Cray, and in the Northwest around Crystal Palace & Anerley and Penge & Cator (Figure 11). Smaller pockets of elevated health deprivation are also present in central areas such as Bromley Common & Holwood. These wards experience poorer health outcomes, higher levels of long‑term illness and disability, and increased premature mortality compared to the rest of the borough. Surrounding areas including Mottingham, Plaistow & Sundridge, Petts Wood & Knoll, and parts of Orpington fall into mid‑range deciles, indicating above‑average health need.
Grouping the same data into quintiles clarifies the pattern. Quintile 1 (the most health‑deprived 20% nationally) again highlights St Paul’s Cray, St Mary Cray, and Crystal Palace & Anerley as hotspots, confirming that poor health outcomes in these areas are persistent and longstanding rather than isolated. In contrast, much of the south and southwest of the borough, including Darwin, Biggin Hill, Hayes & Coney Hall, West Wickham, Farnborough & Crofton and Chelsfield, falls into Quintile 4 or 5, placing them among the least health‑deprived areas in England. Health deprivation in Bromley is highly localised and closely aligned with income and employment deprivation, particularly in the north of the borough. These persistent hotspots highlight the need for place‑based, integrated health and well-being interventions.
Crime
Crime deprivation measures risk of personal and material victimisation [2,3]. Crime deprivation in Bromley shows a clear spatial pattern, with higher levels of victimisation concentrated in the north and northeast of the borough. When viewed by deciles, the most crime‑deprived areas (Deciles 1-2) are clustered in St Paul’s Cray and St Mary Cray, and in the northwest around Crystal Palace & Anerley, Penge & Cator and Clock House, with additional pockets in Kelsey & Eden Park and parts of Bromley Common & Holwood. These areas face the highest relative risk of personal and material crime nationally. Wards surrounding these hotspots-including Mottingham, Plaistow & Sundridge, Chislehurst, and parts of Orpington-fall into mid‑range deciles, indicating elevated but less extreme crime deprivation.
Grouping the data into quintiles reinforces these patterns and helps distinguish areas of greatest concern. Quintile 1 (the most crime‑deprived 20% of areas nationally) includes St Paul’s Cray, St Mary Cray, and Crystal Palace & Anerley, confirming these neighbourhoods as persistent crime hotspots. Quintile 2 covers adjacent wards such as Penge & Cator, Clock House, and parts of Mottingham and Bromley Town, where crime deprivation remains above average. In contrast, much of the south and southwest of the borough-including Farnborough & Crofton, Hayes & Coney Hall, West Wickham, Chelsfield, and parts of Petts Wood & Knoll and Orpington-falls into Quintiles 4 and 5, placing them among the least crime‑deprived areas nationally.
Overall, the relative crime deprivation in Bromley is highly localised and closely aligned with other forms of deprivation, particularly income and employment. While Bromley performs well overall, these persistent northern hotspots highlight the need for targeted, place‑based community safety approaches, including problem‑solving policing, youth and early‑intervention services, environmental improvements, and support for victims, rather than borough‑wide responses alone.
Living Environment
Living environment deprivation considers housing quality, air quality, and road traffic accidents [2,3]. Quintile 1 (the most deprived 20% nationally) is confined to a small number of wards, notably Crystal Palace & Anerley, Penge & Cator, and Clock House, identifying these areas as the primary hotspots for poorer housing conditions and less favourable outdoor environments (Figure 16). Quintile 2 extends across a broader area of the borough, including Bromley Town, St Paul’s Cray, and St Mary Cray, indicating moderate but above‑average living environment deprivation across much of the north and parts of the central corridor.
A substantial proportion of Bromley falls within the least deprived 40% nationally for the living environment (Figure 16). Quintiles 4 and 5 dominate the south and southeast of the borough, including Biggin Hill, Chelsfield, Petts Wood & Knoll, Farnborough & Crofton, and parts of Chislehurst and Orpington, where housing quality, environmental conditions, and road safety are relatively favourable. The decile map (Figure 15) adds further nuance by highlighting small pockets of high deprivation within otherwise less‑deprived wards, and by identifying Darwin as a southern exception, largely falling within mid‑range quintiles. Overall, living environment deprivation in Bromley is highly localised, supporting the need for a targeted, place‑based approach to housing and environmental interventions rather than borough‑wide action.
Income Deprivation Affecting Children (IDACI)
The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) measures the proportion of all children aged 0-15 living in income-deprived families within a given area [2,3]. The IDACI shows a pattern of concentrated child poverty in specific parts of Bromley. When viewed at decile level, neighbourhoods in St Paul’s Cray and St Mary’s Cray fall within Decile 1, placing them among the 10% most deprived areas nationally for child income deprivation (Figure 19). Parts of Crystal Palace & Anerley and Penge & Cator also appear in the lower deciles (Deciles 1-3), indicating elevated levels of child poverty compared to England as a whole. In contrast, large parts of the south and central areas of Bromley, including Biggin Hill, Chelsfield, Hayes & Coney Hall, West Wickham, and much of Chislehurst, are in higher deciles, reflecting lower levels of income deprivation among children.
Grouping the same data into quintiles provides clearer context for policy and commissioning. Quintile 1 (the most deprived 20% nationally) is concentrated in St Paul’s Cray and St Mary’s Cray, confirming these wards as the most affected by child income deprivation in the borough. Quintile 2 includes neighbouring areas such as parts of Crystal Palace & Anerley, Penge & Cator, and Mottingham, forming a broader corridor of moderate child poverty in the north of the borough. In contrast, Quintiles 4 and 5 (the least deprived 40%) dominate the south and southwest of Bromley, including Biggin Hill, Darwin, Chelsfield, Farnborough & Crofton, and much of Hayes & Coney Hall, where a smaller proportion of children live in income‑deprived families. Overall, the combined decile and quintile patterns show that child income deprivation in Bromley is highly localised, closely mirroring broader income and employment deprivation, and reinforces the need for targeted early‑years, family support, and cost‑of‑living interventions in the most affected wards.
Income Deprivation Affecting Older People (IDAOPI)
The Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) measures the proportion of people aged 60 and over who experience income deprivation in a given area [2,3]. The quintile map shows that older‑age income deprivation in Bromley is highly localised, with the greatest concentrations in the north and northeast of the borough. Quintile 1 (the most deprived 20% nationally) includes St Paul’s Cray and St Mary Cray, confirming these wards as the primary hotspots for income deprivation among older residents. Parts of Crystal Palace & Anerley and Clock House also fall into the most deprived quintiles, indicating significant financial vulnerability among older people in these urban areas.
In contrast, much of Bromley falls within the least deprived 40% nationally for older‑age income deprivation. Quintiles 4 and 5 dominate the south and southwest, including Biggin Hill, Chelsfield, Hayes & Coney Hall, Farnborough & Crofton, and large parts of Chislehurst and Petts Wood & Knoll, where a smaller proportion of older people experience income deprivation. Darwin and Orpington sit largely in the middle quintiles, indicating moderate levels of deprivation relative to England. Overall, the quintile pattern mirrors broader income and health deprivation trends, reinforcing a clear north-south divide and underlining the importance of targeted support for older residents in the most affected wards, particularly around benefit uptake, housing affordability, and access to health and social care.
Methodological Note on Supplementary Indices (IDACI and IDAOPI)
The supplementary indices in this report (IDACI and IDAOPI) measure the proportion of children aged 0-15 or adults aged 60+ living in income‑deprived households. These indices are designed as relative measures for ranking neighbourhoods, but they can also be used to estimate the scale of deprivation.
The estimated counts of income‑deprived children or older adults are calculated by applying LSOA‑level proportions to the relevant poulation and summing across areas where required. The estimates presented should therefore be interpreted alongside the broader decile and quintile analysis, as indicators of relative deprivation patterns and potential service need rather than precise counts.
As shown in Figure 5, Bromley’s percentage population in the most deprived quintile fell by 1.2% between 2019 and 2025 (from 7.3% to 6.1%), London’s rose by 2.1% (from 16.3% to 18.4%). Over the same period, population‑weighted estimates indicate that the number of Bromley children living in income‑deprived households increased by 63.6% (number in the most deprived IDACI rose form 8,856 to 14,485) and the number of older residents experiencing income deprivation rose by 33.5% (number in the most deprived IDAOPI rose from 7,685 to 10,257). The growing volume of need is highly localised in northern LSOAs.
Figure 5: Population in the most deprived IMD quintile and numbers of children and older people living in income‑deprived households from 2019 to 2025
Key Findings
1. Bromley remains relatively less deprived overall, with a growing proportion of neighbourhoods now ranked among the least deprived nationally. In 2025, around 44% of Bromley’s neighbourhoods fall within the least deprived 20% in England, up from 38.7% in 2019, indicating a modest improvement in Bromley’s relative position over time.
2. Deprivation in Bromley is highly localised. Despite overall progress, approximately 6% of neighbourhoods remain within the most deprived quintile nationally, with Crystal Palace & Anerley, St Paul’s Cray and St Mary Cray consistently appearing among the most deprived 10-20% of areas in England across multiple domains.
3. There is a north-south divide across most domains of deprivation. Northern and north‑eastern wards experience higher levels of income, employment, health, crime, living environment, and child and older‑age income deprivation, while much of the south and southwest of the borough falls within the least deprived categories nationally.
4. Income and employment deprivation overlap strongly with poor health outcomes. Areas ranking highly for income and employment deprivation also experience elevated levels of health deprivation and disability, reinforcing patterns of compounded relative disadvantage.
5. Education, skills and training deprivation is more dispersed than other domains, affecting both urban and rural areas. This highlights that while poverty and unemployment are concentrated, skills and attainment gaps are a borough‑wide issue, requiring tailored responses.
6. Supplementary indices show deprivation impacts residents differently across the life course and both groups have increased in number since 2019::
- Child income deprivation (IDACI) remains most severe in St Paul’s Cray and St Mary Cray.
- The estimated number of children living in income‑deprived families increased by 63.6%, rising from 8,856 in 2019 to 14,485 in 2025.
- Older‑age income deprivation (IDAOPI) shows a similar pattern of concentration in northern wards.
- The estimated number of older residents experiencing income deprivation increased by 33.5%, from 7,685 (2019) to 10,257 (2025).
These findings suggest that relative deprivation has improved but the volume of residents experiencing income‑related disadvantage has grown, with implications for Children’s Services, Adult Social Care, and preventative public health planning.
Conclusions
The 2025 Indices of Deprivation show that Bromley has maintained and, in some respects, strengthened its relative position nationally, with a higher proportion of neighbourhoods now within the least deprived quintile nationally. This reflects the impact of sustained public health, prevention and partnership activity.
Crucially, a considerable group of neighbourhoods continue to experience overlapping deprivation, particularly in the north and northeast of the borough. The consistency of these patterns across multiple domains, and across time, highlights that without continued and focused intervention, inequalities are unlikely to narrow and could widen.
These findings indicate that continued progress is dependent on sustained effort. The relative stability and modest improvements observed between 2019 and 2025 suggest that existing approaches are helping to prevent deterioration, rather than eliminating disadvantage altogether.
There is a need for continued targeted, place‑based efforts, particularly in neighbourhoods with the most relatively deprived quintiles where multiple challenges coincide. Simultaneously, ongoing preventative work in communities currently in the middle quintiles is essential to avoid negative shifts in future iterations of the Index. Maintaining and strengthening action on the social determinants of health, including income, employment, housing, education, and community safety will be key to sustaining progress, protecting vulnerable groups across the life course, and ensuring that Bromley continues to improve relative to national trends.
References
[1] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. English indices of deprivation 2025: statistical release. London: DLUHC; 2025. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2025
[2] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. English indices of deprivation 2025: technical report. London: DLUHC; 2025. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2025-technical-report
[3] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. English indices of deprivation 2025: research report. London: DLUHC; 2025. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2025-research-report
[4] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. English indices of deprivation 2019. London: MHCLG; 2019. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019
[5] Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. Using the English indices of deprivation in public health analysis: technical guidance. London: OHID; 2023. Available from: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/public-health-technical-guidance/IMD/Using_IMD.html
[6] Office for National Statistics. Lower layer super output areas (LSOAs): guidance and population estimates. Newport: ONS; 2023. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/censusgeography
[7] Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion. What are the English indices of deprivation? A beginner’s guide to the IMD. Oxford: OCSI; 2025. Available from: https://ocsi.uk/2025/10/10/what-are-the-english-indices-of-deprivation-a-beginners-guide-to-the-imd/
[8] London Borough of Bromley. Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA): demography and inequalities. Bromley: London Borough of Bromley; 2024. Available from: https://www.bromley.gov.uk/downloads/download/375/joint-strategic-needs-assessment-jsna-demography
[9] King’s College London. Analysis of change in deprivation quintiles, 2019–2025: Bromley. London: King’s College London; 2025. Commissioned analysis.