Statistical Digest of Rural England:

4 – Communities and Households

May 2026

© Crown copyright 2026

You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.3. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ or email PSI@nationalarchives.gov.uk

This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at

rural.statistics@defra.gov.uk

www.gov.uk/defra

Cover photos

Ward 2021	Rural-Urban Classification 2021
TL	Helmsley marketplace	Helmsley	Larger rural: Further from a major town or city
TC	Horton-in-Ribblesdale train station with Penyghent behind	Settle & Penyghent	Smaller rural: Further from a major town or city
TR	St Giles Church, Skelton	Rural West York	Larger rural: Nearer to a major town or city
CL	Fishing Boat, Marske-by-the-Sea with Hunt cliff in the distance	St Germain's; Saltburn	Larger rural: Nearer to a major town or city
CR	Thornton Force Waterfall, Ingleton Waterfalls Trail	Bentham & Ingleton	Smaller rural: Further from a major town or city
BL	Farmer working the fields in Knapton	Rural West York	Smaller rural: Nearer to a major town or city
BC	Remote pub at Ribblehead viaduct	Bentham & Ingleton	Smaller rural: Further from a major town or city
BR	Glamping pod in the North York Moors	Pickering	Larger rural: Further from a major town or city

All cover photos provided by Martin Fowell.

Table of Contents

About the Statistical Digest of Rural England	5

Official Statistics	6

Communities and Households	7

A.	Index of Multiple Deprivation	8

Key findings – Index of Multiple Deprivation	8

Summary	8

Background information	9

Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025	10

Comparison to previous iterations of the IMD	13

Rescaling the IMD to evaluate deprivation in rural areas only	15

Index of Multiple Deprivation - explanatory notes	17

B.	English Indices of Deprivation	18

Key findings – English Indices of Deprivation	18

Summary	18

Background information	19

English Indices of Deprivation 2025	20

Rescaling the Indices of Deprivation for rural areas only	22

English Indices of Deprivation - explanatory notes	28

C.	Poverty due to low income	30

Key findings – Poverty due to low income	30

Summary	30

Statistics used to measure poverty due to low income	31

Poverty analysis technical note	32

Relative low income before housing costs (BHC)	33

Relative low income after housing costs (AHC)	34

Poverty due to low income - explanatory notes	36

D.	Household expenditure	37

Key findings – Household expenditure	37

Summary	37

Nominal expenditure and disposable income	38

Expenditure on commodity or service groups	40

Household Expenditure - explanatory notes	43

E.	Police recorded crime and outcomes	45

Key findings – Police recorded crime and outcomes	45

Summary	46

Crime rates in 2023/24	46

Crime rates: short-term trends	51

Crime rates: long-term trends	52

Crime outcomes	54

Specific crimes	55

Crime - explanatory notes	66

F.	Crime Surveys: Local Police and Businesses	68

Key findings – Crime Surveys: Local Police and Businesses	68

Summary	68

Crime Survey for England and Wales	69

Commercial Victimisation Survey	80

Crime Surveys - explanatory notes	81

G.	Feelings about the local neighbourhood	83

Key findings – Feelings about the local neighbourhood	83

Summary	83

The neighbourhood	84

Neighbours	86

Decision-making in the local area	87

Social and civic action	89

Feelings about the local neighbourhood - explanatory notes	90

Appendix 1: The 8 thematic reports that make up the Statistical Digest of Rural England	92

Appendix 2: Defining Rural areas	93

About the Statistical Digest of Rural England

The Statistical Digest of Rural England (hereafter the Digest) is a collection of statistics on a range of social and economic topics and provides broad comparisons between Rural and Urban areas by settlement type. For more information on our classifications, including maps and diagrams explaining the classification, see Appendix 2: Defining Rural areas.

The Digest has been restructured into thematic reports and incorporates the previously separate publication the Rural Economic Bulletin.

The Digest consists of the following thematic reports:

Population

Housing

Health and Wellbeing

Communities and Households

Connectivity and Accessibility

Education, Qualifications and Training

Rural Economic Bulletin

Energy

In March 2024 the content relating to energy that was previously split across the Housing and Communities and Households chapters has been consolidated into a new Energy report. Appendix 1 shows the sub-themes within each of the 8 Digest reports. Thematic reports will be updated individually and not every report with be updated every month. The most recent updates for this theme are shown in Table 1.

In November 2025, the ‘Deprivation’ section was updated with new data following the release of the English Indices of Deprivation 2025. In December 2025, the ‘Deprivation’ section was renamed to ‘Index of Multiple Deprivation’ and an additional section added named ‘English Indices of Deprivation’ to reflect further analysis of the English Indices of Deprivation 2025.

Table 1: Update monitor for Communities and Households subsections

where “" indicates the topic has been updated, “" indicates the topic has not been updated, and “New” indicates a new topic with analysis not previously included within the Digest.

Section	Sep 2024	Oct 2024	Feb 2025	May 2025	Nov 2025	Dec 2025	May 2026
Index of Multiple Deprivation							
English Indices of Deprivation	New	
Poverty due to low income							
Household expenditure							
Police recorded crime and outcomes							
Crime surveys: Local Police and Businesses							
Feelings about the local neighbourhood							

Official Statistics

These statistics have been produced to the high professional standards set out in the Code of Practice for Official Statistics, which sets out eight principles including meeting user needs, impartiality and objectivity, integrity, sound methods and assured quality, frankness and accessibility.

More information on the Official Statistics Code of Practice can be found at: Code of Practice for Statistics.

This publication has been compiled by the Rural Statistics Team within the Rural and Place Team in Defra:

Stephen Hall

Sarah Harriss

Beth Kerwin

Martin Fowell

rural.statistics@defra.gov.uk

There is a 2011 Census version of the Digest which looks at the data from the 2011 census and where possible makes comparisons to the 2001 census results.

This can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/2011-census-results-for-rural-england

The 2021 Rural-Urban Classification was released on 6 March 2025. Details of the 2021 Rural Urban Classification can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/rural-urban-classification. It will take some time for the Digest to be updated throughout using the new classification. Where relevant, Statistics drawing on the 2021 Census will be added to Digest thematic reports.

Communities and Households

This part of the Statistical Digest of Rural England focuses on Communities and Households, and covers the following:

analysis of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (Section A)

analysis of the English Indices of Deprivation (Section B)

poverty due to low income (Section C)

household expenditure (Section D)

police recorded crime and outcomes (Section E)

perceptions of local police and commercial victimisation (Section F)

views about local communities and neighbourhoods (Section G)

Index of Multiple Deprivation

Rural neighbourhoods tend to be relatively less deprived than urban neighbourhoods; just 1% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England, compared to 12% of the urban population.

The English Indices of Deprivation 2025 include a special report on rural deprivation. The analysis below is Defra’s analysis of the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Key findings – Index of Multiple Deprivation

Rural neighbourhoods tend to be less deprived than urban neighbourhoods

In the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025, only 1% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England, compared with 12% of the urban population.

9% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 30% of neighbourhoods, compared with 35% of the urban population.

Greater deprivation in rural areas lies further from major towns or cities

In the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025, 29% of the rural population in areas further from major towns or cities lived in the most deprived 40% of neighbourhoods, compared with 14% of those nearer to towns or cities.

The most common deprivation decile for those further from towns or cities was decile 5, compared with decile 7 for those nearer.

Larger rural settlements relatively more deprived than smaller rural settlements

After rescaling the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025 for rural areas only, 13% of the population in larger rural settlements lived in the most deprived 10% of rural neighbourhoods, compared with 6% in smaller rural settlements.

Summary

The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is a composite measure of deprivation compiled by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The index is a measure of relative rather than absolute deprivation. It is most effective at identifying concentrations of relative deprivation.

The English Indices of Deprivation 2025 include a special report on rural deprivation.

The IMD25 shows that just 1% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England, compared to 12% of the urban population. However, deprivation in rural areas tends to be more dispersed, which means that rural neighbourhoods are less likely to be regarded as relatively deprived, even though there could be residents who experience deprivation. Relative deprivation within rural areas can vary by proximity to large urban centres; the proportion of the rural population further from major towns or cities in the most deprived 40% of neighbourhoods in England was twice that of the rural population living nearer to major towns or cities, at 29% and 14% respectively.

There have been very significant data, geography, and methodological changes to the IMD25 compared with IMD19. These changes may have contributed to the patterns of relative deprivation observed; however, there may also have been changes in the experienced deprivation of neighbourhoods over time. The proportion of the rural population residing in the most deprived 30% of neighbourhoods in England appeared to increase, from 7% at IMD19 to nearly 9% at IMD25.

To better understand the distribution of deprivation in rural areas, the IMD ranks have been rescaled for rural neighbourhoods only to show relative rural deprivation. The index shows that the proportion of the population in larger rural settlements living in the most deprived 10% of rural neighbourhoods was more than twice that of the smaller rural population, at 13% and 6% respectively. Relative rural deprivation is more prevalent in rural coastal communities along the East coast of England, in former mining communities in the North of England, and in the South West of England.

Background information

The Index of Multiple Deprivation is compiled by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The latest is IMD25, released in October 2025. The IMD is designed to measure multiple dimensions of deprivation consistently and is the official measure of deprivation in England. It is based on seven domains of deprivation:

Income deprivation,

Employment deprivation,

Education, skills and training deprivation,

Health deprivation and disability,

Crime,

Barriers to housing and services, and

Living environment deprivation.

Within some of these domains are sub-domains, as follows: ‘Children and Young People’ and ‘Adult Skills’ combine to form the ‘Education, skills and training’ domain’; ‘Geographical barriers’ and ‘Wider barriers’ combine to form the ‘Barriers to housing and services’ domain; and the ‘Living environment’ domain can be considered in terms of either the ‘indoor’ or ‘outdoor’ environment. These domains and sub-domains are explored in more detail in Section B.

The statistical release from MHCLG states that the indices of deprivation are “designed to identify and measure specific aspects of deprivation, rather than measures of affluence” and that the methodology is “designed to reliably distinguish between areas at the most deprived end of the distribution, but not at the least deprived end” (Note A-1). This means that differences between the least deprived areas in the country are less well defined than differences between the more deprived areas. It is important to recognise that not every person in a highly deprived area will themselves be deprived. Likewise, there will be some deprived people living in the least deprived areas. This could be particularly the case in rural areas where the underlying area used to determine the index will be much more geographically spread out than in urban areas.

Small pockets of deprivation are less likely to be identifiable amid a relatively affluent area. In urban areas, deprivation is more likely to be concentrated in an area and hence more easily visible in the index. Data from the index are provided at Lower-layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level, based on boundaries from the 2021 Census; for the purposes of this analysis, these shall henceforth be referred to as “neighbourhoods”.

Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025

The bar chart in Figure A‑1 compares the proportion of the population living in rural neighbourhoods within each decile of IMD25 to those in urban neighbourhoods; this is also explored in Chart 3.1 within the English indices of deprivation 2025: rural report. Overall, rural neighbourhoods tend to be less deprived than urban ones. The index shows that just 1% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England, compared to 12% of the urban population. The proportion of the rural population residing in the most deprived 30% of neighbourhoods in England was considerably lower than the proportion of the urban population, at 9% and 35% respectively.

Figure A‑1: Bar chart showing the proportion of the population living in neighbourhoods within each decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025, by 2021 Rural-Urban Classification in England (Note A-1, Note A-2, Note A-5)

Decile 1 is the most deprived 10%, whilst decile 10 is the least deprived 10%. The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of columns.

The IMD takes account of accessibility of services, and this inevitably affects deprivation in rural areas. The bar chart in Figure A‑2 compares the proportion of the rural population living in neighbourhoods within each decile of IMD25 by proximity to a major town or city (Note A-3). Whilst only around 1% of both populations (whether nearer or further from a major town or city) live within the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England, the relative deprivation experienced by those further from major towns or cities tends to be greater. For example, of those living further from a major town or city, the most common deprivation decile was decile 5 (i.e., living in the 40% to 50% most deprived neighbourhoods in England); in comparison, for the rural population that live nearer to major towns or cities, the most common deprivation decile was decile 7 (in the 60% to 70% most deprived neighbourhoods, or 30% to 40% least deprived). This indicates that rural residents further from major towns or cities are more commonly found in relatively more deprived neighbourhoods.

Furthermore, the proportion of the rural population further from major towns or cities in the most deprived 40% of neighbourhoods in England was twice that of the rural population living nearer to major towns or cities, at 29% and 14% respectively.

Figure A‑2: Bar chart showing the proportion of the rural population living in neighbourhoods within each decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025, by proximity to a major town or city from the 2021 Rural-Urban Classification in England (Note A-1, Note A-2, Note A-3, Note A-5)

Decile 1 is the most deprived 10%, whilst decile 10 is the least deprived 10%. ‘Further from’ represents neighbourhoods that are further from a major town or city, whilst ‘nearer to’ represents those within a 30-minute drive. The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of columns.

The map in Figure A‑3 depicts the relative deprivation of neighbourhoods in England from IMD25; the darker the colour, the more deprived the neighbourhood is considered to be in relation to other areas. This map restructures the information presented in Map 1 within the English indices of deprivation 2025: statistical release - GOV.UK, where deciles have been combined to reduce the number of groups of neighbourhoods from 10 to 5. MHCLG have also created an interactive tool to identify deprivation in various dimensions and levels of geography.

The North East of England shows higher levels of deprivation than anywhere else in England; here, 27% of rural neighbourhoods were within the most deprived 20% of areas in England. In comparison, 39% of urban neighbourhoods in the North East were within the most deprived 20% of areas in England; this suggests that urban areas may be relatively more deprived than rural areas within this region, and highlights the high levels of relative deprivation in former mining communities.

The South East of England shows lower levels of deprivation relative to the rest of England; here, just 2% of rural neighbourhoods were within the most deprived 20% of areas in England. In comparison, 10% of urban neighbourhoods were within the most deprived 20% of areas in England. This suggests that even in potentially more affluent, well-connected areas, there are still pockets of deprivation in both rural and urban neighbourhoods.

Figure A‑3: Map showing the distribution of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025 of neighbourhoods in England (Note A-1, Note A-5)

Each colour represents the grouping of two deciles, such that the darkest colour illustrates the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods, and the lightest colour illustrates the least deprived 20%.

Comparison to previous iterations of the IMD

The purpose of the Index of Multiple Deprivation is to measure the relative deprivation at small area level as a snapshot in time; it is not designed to provide ‘backwards’ comparability with previous versions. There have been very significant data, geography, and methodological changes in the IMD25 compared with IMD19. Changes in relative deprivation should not be considered as absolute improvement or deterioration; that is, if a neighbourhood appears to have become more deprived between the previous and latest version of the IMD, this is not necessarily a fact of experienced deprivation and may be a consequence of methodological changes. Changes in relative deprivation are explored within MHCLG’s English indices of deprivation 2025: research report - GOV.UK.

The bar chart in Figure A‑4 compares the proportion of the rural population living in neighbourhoods within each decile of deprivation from the 2019 and 2025 iterations of the IMD. In successive iterations of the IMD the rural population has become more relatively deprived over time; however, as previously mentioned, this could be due to both changes between indices as well as actual observed increases in deprivation levels. At IMD19, 0.9% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England. At IMD25, this was 1.2%, highlighting a greater proportion of the rural population living in the most deprived neighbourhoods. The proportion of the rural population residing in the most deprived 30% of neighbourhoods in England also appeared to increase over time, from 7% at IMD19 to nearly 9% at IMD25.

Figure A‑4: Bar chart showing the proportion of the rural population, as defined within the 2021 Rural-Urban Classification, living in neighbourhoods within each decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation at 2019 and 2025 (Note A-1, Note A-2, Note A-4, Note A-5)

Decile 1 is the most deprived 10%, whilst decile 10 is the least deprived 10%. The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of columns.

Although it is not included in the chart (and can instead be found within the supplementary data tables), the rural-urban comparison shows that urban neighbourhoods appear to have experienced little change in deprivation levels between IMD19 and IMD25.

The top bar chart in Figure A‑5 compares the proportion of the rural population living in neighbourhoods further from major towns or cities within each decile from the 2019 and 2025 iterations of the IMD. The bottom bar chart in Figure A-5 instead explores these proportions of the rural population living in neighbourhoods nearer to major towns or cities.

Figure A‑5: Bar chart showing the proportion of the rural population, as defined within the 2021 Rural-Urban Classification, living in neighbourhoods within each decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation at 2019 and 2025, by proximity to a major town or city (Note A-1, Note A-3, Note A-4, Note A-5)

Decile 1 is the most deprived 10%, whilst decile 10 is the least deprived 10%. The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of columns. The top chart highlights rural populations that reside further from major towns or cities, whilst the bottom chart highlights those that reside nearer to major towns or cities.

Between the two IMD releases shown in the charts (2019 and 2025), the distribution of the rural population by deprivation decile has shifted towards greater relative deprivation for both proximity groups. For areas further from major towns or cities, the proportion of the population in the most deprived 40% of neighbourhoods increased over time, while the share in the least deprived deciles declined. A similar pattern is observed for areas nearer to major towns or cities, although their distribution remains more concentrated in the least deprived deciles. These changes indicate that, over the past decade, rural populations - regardless of proximity - are increasingly located in more deprived neighbourhoods, with the shift being more pronounced for those living further from major towns or cities; as previously stated, these differences may result from actual changes in neighbourhood deprivation or from methodological adjustments made in successive IMD releases.

Rescaling the IMD to evaluate deprivation in rural areas only

The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is intended to identify concentrations of deprivation across England. While deprivation occurs in rural areas, it tends to be more dispersed, so a rural area that includes deprived households may not be sufficiently deprived relative to the areas across the country to rank highly on the overall index. Rural households may also score differently on the various measures of deprivation compared with urban households. To better understand the distribution of deprivation in rural neighbourhoods, those areas classed as urban within the Rural-Urban Classification can be removed from the data and then IMD ranks rescaled for rural areas only to show relative rural deprivation; this is still based on the IMD, and is a legitimate use of the index as discussed within MHCLG’s rural report.

The bar chart in Figure A‑6 compares the proportion of the population living in neighbourhoods that are or are within smaller rural settlements to those in larger rural settlements, within each decile of the 2025 IMD, after rescaling for rural areas only. The proportion of the population in larger rural settlements living in the most deprived 10% of rural neighbourhoods was more than twice that of the smaller rural population, at 13% and 6% respectively. However, a similar proportion lived in the most deprived 40% of rural neighbourhoods, at 39% for both smaller and larger rural areas.

Figure A‑6: Bar chart showing the proportion of the population living in neighbourhoods within each decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025 after rescaling for rural areas only, by settlement type from the 2021 Rural-Urban Classification (Note A-1, Note A-5)

Decile 1 is the most deprived 10%, whilst decile 10 is the least deprived 10%. The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of columns.

Figure A‑7: Map showing distribution of rural neighbourhoods from the rescaled Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025, as defined within the 2021 Rural-Urban Classification, in England (Note A-1, Note A-5)

White areas of landmass represent urban neighbourhoods, which have been removed in order to rescale the index to measure relative deprivation in rural areas. Each colour represents the grouping of two deciles, such that the darkest colour illustrates the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods, and the lightest colour illustrates the least deprived 20%.

The map in Figure A‑7 depicts the relative deprivation of rural neighbourhoods once urban areas have been removed from the IMD; the darker the colour, the more deprived the neighbourhood is considered to be in relation to other rural areas.

There were 5,554 rural neighbourhoods at IMD25, meaning the most deprived 20% of rural areas represented 1,111 neighbourhoods. 56% of neighbourhoods in the North East of England were among the most deprived 20% of rural areas at IMD 2025. In comparison, just 13% of neighbourhoods in the South East were among the most deprived 20% of rural areas in England, indicating lesser relative deprivation. Deprived rural neighbourhoods are also prevalent along the East coast of England, in former mining communities in the North of England, and in the South West of England. Analysis of relative rural deprivation in other regions can be found within the supplementary data tables.

Index of Multiple Deprivation - explanatory notes

Note A-1

The latest iteration of the Index of Multiple Deprivation was last released in October 2025 by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG): English indices of deprivation 2025 - GOV.UK. Supplementary reports including a rural report (investigating deprivation in rural areas), technical report (focused on data sources and methods), and research report (focused on analysis and interpretation) were published alongside the main release. Previous iterations of the index can be found via the main collection page: English indices of deprivation - GOV.UK. MHCLG also created an interactive tool to explore local deprivation.

Note A-2

The 2021 Rural-Urban Classification of LSOAs in England (based on Census 2021 boundaries) has been used to define the settlement types specified within this analysis. Information about the classification can be found via: Rural Urban Classification - GOV.UK.

Note A-3

Being ‘nearer to a major town or city’ is defined as being within a 30-minute drive of a built-up area with a population of at least 75,000; conversely, being ‘further from a major town or city’ is defined as being more than a 30-minute drive away from one of these built up areas. More information regarding this definition can be found via 2021 Rural Urban Classification - Office for National Statistics, including the user guide.

Note A-4

Each IMD release uses population estimates from a point in time close to the reference period of its underlying data to ensure consistency across indicators. IMD 2019 is based on mid-2015 estimates (as described in the relevant technical report), and IMD 2025 on mid-2022 estimates, aligning with the majority of administrative data used in each index.

Note A-5

The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) measures relative deprivation, not absolute poverty. A neighbourhood ranked as more deprived does not necessarily mean all households within it are deprived. However, the index is not designed to highlight specific, small-scale incidences of deprivation, but rather where an entire neighbourhood is deprived. Users seeking to identify deprivation at household or individual level could consider alternative sources such as income-based benefits data( e.g., Universal Credit or Housing Benefit claims), free school meal eligibility, fuel poverty datasets, or social care and housing need data.

English Indices of Deprivation

Rural neighbourhoods tend to be relatively less deprived (as determined by the Indices of Deprivation) than urban neighbourhoods across most domains, but face specific challenges related to access and housing quality.

The English Indices of Deprivation 2025 include a special report on rural deprivation. The analysis below is Defra’s analysis of the indices.

Key findings – English Indices of Deprivation

Rural neighbourhoods are typically more deprived in terms of Geographical Barriers and Indoor Living Environment

Within the English Indices of Deprivation 2025, in terms of Geographical Barriers to Housing and Services, 88% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods nationally, compared with just 7% of the urban population.

Within the English Indices of Deprivation 2025, in terms of the Indoor Living Environment, 38% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods nationally, compared with 16% of the urban population.

Larger rural settlements are relatively more deprived than smaller rural settlements

After rescaling Income Deprivation from the English Indices of Deprivation 2025 for rural areas only, 31% of the population in larger rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods, compared with just 8% in smaller rural settlements.

After rescaling Employment Deprivation from the English Indices of Deprivation 2025 for rural areas only, 29% of the population in larger rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods, compared with 9% in smaller rural settlements.

Summary

The English Indices of Deprivation (IoD) are a suite of measures of deprivation compiled by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The indices are measures of relative rather than absolute deprivation. They are most effective at identifying concentrations of relative deprivation.

The English Indices of Deprivation 2025 include a special report on rural deprivation.

Overall, rural neighbourhoods tend to be less deprived than urban ones in terms of each domain of deprivation, except for the ‘Geographical Barriers’ sub-domain within the Barriers to Housing and Services domain, and the ‘Indoors’ sub-domain within the Living Environment Deprivation domain.

For example, using the Income Deprivation Domain, just 2% of the rural population lived in the most income-deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England, compared to 24% of the urban population. However, most dimensions of deprivation in rural areas tend to be more dispersed, meaning that rural neighbourhoods are less likely to be regarded as relatively deprived, even though there could be residents who experience deprivation.

To better understand the distribution of deprivation in rural areas, in some of the analysis the IoD ranks have been rescaled for rural neighbourhoods only to show relative rural deprivation. Overall, neighbourhoods within smaller rural settlements tend to be less deprived than those within larger rural settlements in terms of each domain of deprivation. For example, 8% of the population in smaller rural settlements lived in the most income-deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England, compared to 31% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Background information

The English Indices of Deprivation (IoD) are published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The IoD25 suite of resources is designed to measure relative levels of deprivation at a small area level consistently across England. The combined Index of Multiple Deprivation measure (the IMD) is the official measure of relative deprivation in England. The IoD25 include seven domains of deprivation:

Income deprivation,

Employment deprivation,

Education, skills and training deprivation,

Health deprivation and disability,

Crime,

Barriers to housing and services, and

Living environment deprivation.

Within some of these domains are sub-domains, as follows: ‘Children and Young People’ and ‘Adult Skills’ combine to form the ‘Education, skills and training’ domain’; ‘Geographical barriers’ and ‘Wider barriers’ combine to form the ‘Barriers to housing and services’ domain; and the ‘Living environment’ domain can be considered in terms of either the ‘indoor’ or ‘outdoor’ environment.

The indices are weighted and combined to form the single Index of Multiple Deprivation, or ‘IMD’ (Section A). The weightings applied to the domains of deprivation to form the IMD are discussed within MHCLG’s technical report which accompanies the English Indices of Deprivation release.

MHCLG’s statistical release states that the indices of deprivation are “designed to identify and measure specific aspects of deprivation, rather than measures of affluence” and that the methodology is “designed to reliably distinguish between areas at the most deprived end of the distribution, but not at the least deprived end” (Note B-1). This means that differences between the least deprived areas in the country are less well defined than differences between the more deprived areas. It is important to recognise that not every person in a highly deprived area will themselves be deprived. Likewise, there will be some deprived people living in the least deprived areas. This could be particularly the case in rural areas where the underlying area used to determine the index will be much more geographically spread out than in urban areas.

Small pockets of deprivation are less likely to be identifiable amid a relatively affluent area. In urban areas, deprivation is more likely to be concentrated in an area and hence more easily visible in the index. Data from the Indices are provided at Lower-layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level, based on boundaries from the 2021 Census; for the purposes of this analysis, these shall henceforth be referred to as “neighbourhoods”.

English Indices of Deprivation 2025

The 2025 English Indices of Deprivation (IoD25 ) provide a set of 7 relative measures of deprivation at neighbourhood level across England. The bar chart in Figure B‑1 shows the proportion of each relevant population living within the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods nationally, by domain or sub-domain of deprivation. The ‘relevant population’ is different for some domains, as the most appropriate population has been considered (Note B-3).

Figure B‑1: Bar chart showing the proportion of the population living in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods nationally, by domain of deprivation from the 2025 English Indices of Deprivation and 2021 Rural-Urban Classification (Note B-1, Note B-2, Note B-3)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

The bar chart in Figure B‑1 can be described as follows:

Overall, rural neighbourhoods tend to be less deprived than urban ones in terms of each domain of deprivation, except for the ‘Geographical Barriers’ sub-domain within the Barriers to Housing and Services domain, and the ‘Indoors’ sub-domain within the Living Environment Deprivation domain.

Income Deprivation: Just 2% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of income deprivation), compared to 24% of the urban population.

Employment Deprivation: 4% of the working-age rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of employment deprivation), compared to 23% of the urban population.

Education, Skills and Training Deprivation – Children and Young People: 13% of the rural dependent population aged 0 to 15 years lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of young people’s education deprivation), compared to 24% of the urban population.

Education, Skills and Training Deprivation – Adult Skills: 3% of the rural population aged 16 to 59 years lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of adult skills deprivation), compared to 24% of the urban population.

Health Deprivation and Disability: 4% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of health deprivation and disability), compared to 23% of the urban population.

Crime: Just 2% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of the ‘crime’ domain of deprivation), compared to 24% of the urban population.

Barriers to Housing and Services – Geographical Barriers: 88% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of geographical barriers based on access to services), compared to 7% of the urban population.

Barriers to Housing and Services – Wider Barriers: Just 1% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of wider barriers, such as housing affordability and overcrowding), compared to 26% of the urban population.

Living Environment Deprivation – Indoors: 38% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of indoor environment deprivation, such as poor housing quality), compared to 16% of the urban population.

Living Environment Deprivation – Outdoors: Just 1% of the rural population lived in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England (in terms of outdoor environment deprivation, such as air quality), compared to 25% of the urban population.

Table B‑1 highlights the most deprived neighbourhoods in England, in terms of each domain and sub-domain of deprivation from the English Indices of Deprivation 2025. Each neighbourhood’s parent Middle-Layer Super Output Area has been named to provide geographical context. For most of the domains and sub-domains of deprivation specified, the most deprived neighbourhoods are within urban areas; specifically, they are concentrated in London and major cities, where income, employment and crime deprivation can be particularly high.

The most income deprived neighbourhood, according to the English Indices of Deprivation 2025, is within the 'Stamford Hill South' area of Hackney. South of this neighbourhood is 'Hackney Central', within which is the most employment deprived neighbourhood in England; both of these neighbourhoods in Hackney are urban. Further in the south of Hackney is the 'Shoreditch' area, within which is the most deprived neighbourhood in terms of the outdoor living environment. However, the most deprived neighbourhood in terms of the indoor living environment is further North, within the rural 'Stanhope and Weardale' area of County Durham.

The most deprived neighbourhood in terms of education, skills and training differed depending on whether the focus was on children and young people, or adult skills. The most deprived neighbourhood in terms of children and young people's education, skills and training is within the urban 'Central Doncaster and Hyde Park' area of Doncaster. The most deprived neighbourhood in terms of adult skills is further South, within the urban 'Spinney Hill Road' area of Leicester.

The most deprived neighbourhood in terms of barriers to housing and services differed depending on whether the focus was on the ‘geographical’ accessibility of key services or ‘wider’ or more broad barriers, such as access to affordable housing. The most deprived neighbourhood in terms of geographical barriers to housing and services is within the rural 'Seahouses, Belford and Wooler' area of Northumberland. The most deprived neighbourhood in terms of wider barriers to housing and services is further South, within the urban 'St Raphaels' area of Brent.

The most deprived neighbourhood in terms of health deprivation and disability is within the urban 'Birkenhead Central' area of Wirral. The most deprived neighbourhood in terms of crime is within the urban 'North Shore' area of Blackpool.

Table B‑1: Most deprived neighbourhoods based on rankings from each of the English Indices of Deprivation 2025 (Note B-1)

The Rural-Urban Classification of each neighbourhood has been indicated in the ‘RUC21’ column.

Indices of Deprivation	Neighbourhood	RUC21	Parent area
Income Deprivation	Hackney 004E	Urban	Stamford Hill South
Employment Deprivation	Hackney 017D	Urban	Hackney Central
Children and Young People	Doncaster 022A	Urban	Central Doncaster and Hyde Park
Adult Skills	Leicester 017B	Urban	Spinney Hill Road
Health Deprivation and Disability	Wirral 016E	Urban	Birkenhead Central
Crime	Blackpool 006A	Urban	North Shore
Geographical Barriers	Northumberland 003B	Rural	Seahouses, Belford and Wooler
Wider Barriers	Brent 021F	Urban	St Raphaels
Indoor Environment	County Durham 042A	Rural	Stanhope and Weardale
Outdoor Environment	Hackney 033B	Urban	Shoreditch

Rescaling the Indices of Deprivation for rural areas only

The English Indices of Deprivation (IoD) are intended to identify concentrations of deprivation across England based on the 7 different dimensions, or ‘domains’. While deprivation occurs in rural areas, it tends to be more dispersed, so a rural neighbourhood that includes deprived households may not be sufficiently deprived relative to the areas across the country to rank highly on each of the individual indices. Rural households may also score differently on the various measures of deprivation compared with urban households.

To better understand the distribution of deprivation in rural neighbourhoods, those areas classed as urban within the Rural-Urban Classification can be removed from the data and then each domain’s ranks rescaled for rural areas only to show relative rural deprivation within that domain.

The bar chart in Figure B‑2 shows the proportion of each relevant population living within the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England, by domains or sub-domain of deprivation and settlement type from the Rural-Urban Classification, using the IoD25. The ‘relevant population’ is different for some domains, as the most appropriate population has been considered (Note B-3).

Figure B‑2: Bar chart showing the proportion of the population living in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods after rescaling for rural areas only, by domain of deprivation from the 2025 English Indices of Deprivation and settlement type from the 2021 Rural-Urban Classification (Note B-1, Note B-2, Note B-3)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

The bar chart in Figure B‑2 can be described as follows:

Overall, neighbourhoods within smaller rural settlements tend to be less deprived than those within larger rural settlements in terms of each domain of deprivation, except for ‘Geographical Barriers’ to Housing and Services, and ‘Indoor’ Living Environment Deprivation.

Income Deprivation: 8% of the population in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of income deprivation), compared to 31% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Employment Deprivation: 9% of the working-age population in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of employment deprivation), compared to 29% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Education, Skills and Training Deprivation – Children and Young People: 12% of the dependent population aged 0 to 15 years in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of young people’s education deprivation), compared to 29% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Education, Skills and Training Deprivation – Adult Skills: 11% of the population aged 16 to 59 years in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of adult skills deprivation), compared to 28% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Health Deprivation and Disability: 9% of the population in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of health deprivation and disability), compared to 28% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Crime: 10% of the population in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of the ‘crime’ domain of deprivation), compared to 29% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Barriers to Housing and Services – Geographical Barriers: 40% of the population in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of geographical barriers based on access to services), compared to just 2% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Barriers to Housing and Services – Wider Barriers: 17% of the population in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of wider barriers, such as housing affordability and overcrowding), compared to 23% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Living Environment Deprivation – Indoors: 35% of the population in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of indoor environment deprivation, such as poor housing quality), compared to 6% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Living Environment Deprivation – Outdoors: 22% of the population in smaller rural settlements lived in the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods in England (in terms of outdoor environment deprivation, such as air quality), compared to 18% of the population in larger rural settlements.

Table B‑2 highlights the most deprived rural neighbourhoods, based on the rescaled indices where urban neighbourhoods have been removed, in terms of each domain and sub-domain of deprivation from the English Indices of Deprivation 2025. Each neighbourhood’s parent Middle-Layer Super Output Area has been named to provide geographical context. For each of the domains and sub-domains of deprivation specified, the most deprived rural neighbourhoods are concentrated in the East of the country, rather than the West.

The most income deprived rural neighbourhood, according to the rescaled English Indices of Deprivation 2025, is within the 'Kinsley and Fitzwilliam' area of Wakefield.

Table B‑2: Most deprived rural neighbourhoods based on rankings from each of the English Indices of Deprivation 2025 once rescaled for rural areas only, as defined within the 2021 Rural-Urban Classification, in England (Note B-1)

Indices of Deprivation	Neighbourhood	Parent area
Income Deprivation	Wakefield 039D	Kinsley and Fitzwilliam
Employment Deprivation	County Durham 025B	Easington and Hawthorn
Children and Young People	Swale 006A	Sheppey East
Adult Skills	East Lindsey 010A	Ingoldmells and Chapel St Leonards
Health Deprivation and Disability	County Durham 039D	Blackhall
Crime	County Durham 025B	Easington and Hawthorn
Geographical Barriers	Northumberland 003B	Seahouses, Belford and Wooler
Wider Barriers	Thurrock 013A	East Tilbury
Indoor Environment	County Durham 042A	Stanhope and Weardale
Outdoor Environment	Windsor and Maidenhead 011B	Datchet

Several of the most deprived rural neighbourhoods for each of the domains and sub-domains were in County Durham. The most employment deprived rural neighbourhood is within the 'Easington and Hawthorn' area of County Durham; this is also the most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of crime. To the south of this neighbourhood is the most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of health deprivation and disability, within the 'Blackhall' area of County Durham. To the west is the most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of the indoor living environment, within the 'Stanhope and Weardale' area of County Durham. However, the most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of the outdoor living environment is further South, within the 'Datchet' area of Windsor and Maidenhead.

The most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of education, skills and training differed depending on whether the focus was on children and young people, or adult skills. The most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of children and young people's education, skills and training is within the 'Sheppey East' area of Swale. The most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of adult skills is further North, within the 'Ingoldmells and Chapel St Leonards' area of East Lindsey.

The most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of barriers to housing and services differed depending on whether the focus was on the ‘geographical’ accessibility of key services or ‘wider’ or more broad barriers, such as access to affordable housing. The most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of geographical barriers to housing and services is within the 'Seahouses, Belford and Wooler' area in Northumberland. The most deprived rural neighbourhood in terms of wider barriers to housing and services is further South, within the 'East Tilbury' area of Thurrock.

Again just focusing on rural areas, using the rescaled indices as produced for the purposes of this report, domains and sub-domains can be mapped to show the distribution of relative deprivation across rural neighbourhoods in England. ‘Income Deprivation’ and ‘Geographical Barriers to Housing and Services’ are shown as example maps in Figure B‑3 and Figure B‑4.

For each of the maps shown, the darker the colour, the more deprived the neighbourhood is considered to be in relation to other rural areas.

Figure B‑3: Map showing the distribution of income deprivation across rural neighbourhoods, as defined within the 2021 Rural-Urban Classification, based on the rescaled English Indices of Deprivation 2025 (Note B-1)

White areas of landmass represent urban neighbourhoods, which have been removed in order to rescale the index to measure relative income deprivation in rural areas. Each colour represents the grouping of two deciles, such that the darkest colour illustrates the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods, and the lightest colour illustrates the least deprived 20%.

Figure B‑4: Map showing the distribution of deprivation across rural neighbourhoods, as defined within the 2021 Rural-Urban Classification, in terms of geographical barriers to housing and services based on the rescaled English Indices of Deprivation 2025 (Note B-1)

White areas of landmass represent urban neighbourhoods, which have been removed in order to rescale the index to measure relative income deprivation in rural areas. Each colour represents the grouping of two deciles, such that the darkest colour illustrates the most deprived 20% of rural neighbourhoods, and the lightest colour illustrates the least deprived 20%.

The map in Figure B‑3 depicts the rescaled relative income deprivation of rural neighbourhoods across England once urban areas have been removed. 52% of neighbourhoods in the North East were among the most income deprived 20% of rural areas across England, compared to 15% of neighbourhoods in the South East. The map in Figure A‑7 – which showed the distribution of multiple deprivation from the IMD25 – had proportionally more neighbourhoods in the North East, and proportionally fewer in the South East, among the most deprived 20% of rural areas. This shows how taking account of multiple dimensions of deprivation changes the geographic distribution. Income deprivation is more dispersed across England than perhaps some other dimensions of deprivation.

The map in Figure B‑4 depicts the rescaled relative deprivation of rural neighbourhoods (once urban areas have been removed) in terms of geographical barriers to housing and services. 12% of neighbourhoods in the North East were among the most deprived 20% of rural areas across England in terms of geographical barriers to housing and services; this compares to 13% in the South East. However, 30% of neighbourhoods in the West midlands were among the most deprived 20% of rural areas across England in terms of geographical barriers to housing and services, indicating a considerably different distribution than income deprivation. Figure B‑4 shows widespread high levels of deprivation in terms of the geographical barriers, reflecting the less well-connected rural settlements and poorer access to essential services by public transport.

English Indices of Deprivation - explanatory notes

Note B-1

The latest iteration of the English Indices of Deprivation was last released in October 2025 by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG): English indices of deprivation 2025 - GOV.UK. Supplementary reports including a rural report (investigating deprivation in rural areas), technical report (focused on data sources and methods), and research report (focused on analysis and interpretation) were published alongside the main release. Previous iterations of the indices can be found via the main collection page: English indices of deprivation - GOV.UK. MHCLG also created an interactive tool to explore local deprivation.

Note B-2

The 2021 Rural-Urban Classification of LSOAs in England (based on Census 2021 boundaries) has been used to define the settlement types specified within this analysis. Information about the classification can be found via: Rural Urban Classification - GOV.UK.

Note B-3

The IoD release uses population estimates from a point in time close to the reference period of its underlying data to ensure consistency across indicators; IoD25 is based on mid-2022 estimates, aligning with the majority of administrative data used in each index.

Where analysis portrays the proportion of the population within a specified group (e.g., proportion of the population in the most income-deprived 20% of neighbourhoods), appropriate populations have been considered, as follows:

‘Income Deprivation’, ‘Health Deprivation and Disability’, ‘Crime’, ‘Barriers to Housing and Services’ (in terms of both geographical and wider barriers), and Living Environment Deprivation (in terms of both the indoor and outdoor environment) all use the total usual resident population.

‘Employment Deprivation’ uses the working-age population, aged between 18 and 66 years.

Education, Skills and Training Deprivation of ‘Children and Young People’ uses the population of dependent children aged between 0 and 15 years.

Education, Skills and Training Deprivation in terms of ‘Adult Skills’ uses the population aged between 16 and 59 years.

Note B-4

The English Indices of Deprivation (IoD) measures relative deprivation, not absolute poverty. A neighbourhood ranked as more deprived does not necessarily mean all households within it are deprived. However, the indices are not designed to highlight specific, small-scale incidences of deprivation, but rather where an entire neighbourhood is deprived. Users seeking to identify deprivation at household or individual level could consider alternative sources such as income-based benefits data (e.g., Universal Credit or Housing Benefit claims), free school meal eligibility, fuel poverty datasets, or social care and housing need data.

Poverty due to low income

A smaller proportion of individuals and households in rural areas experience low-income poverty than in urban areas.

Key findings – Poverty due to low income

Proportionally fewer rural households are in poverty than urban households

In 2024/25, 12% of households in rural settlements were in relative low income before accounting for housing costs; this compares to 17% of households in urban settlements. After housing costs, this rises to 13% of households in rural settlements and 21% in urban settlements.

Proportionally fewer rural children are in poverty than urban children

In 2024/25, 11% of children in rural settlements were in relative low income before accounting for housing costs; this compares to 22% of children in urban settlements. After housing costs, this rises to 16% of children in rural settlements and 30% in urban settlements.

Summary

Households Below Average Income (HBAI) statistics give an insight into the standard of living of the household population of England. This publication uses relative low income as a measure of poverty, comparing household income with median household income. A separate measure, absolute low income, relates household income to an inflation adjusted threshold value. For 2024/25 analysis the reference year for measuring absolute low income changed from 2010/11 to 2024/25 meaning that for this year the two measures will be the same.

In 2024/25, 12% of households in rural settlements were in relative low income before accounting for housing costs (BHC); this compares to 17% of households in urban settlements. For all demographic groups (working-age people defined as those aged between 16 to 64, children and pensioners) the percentage that were in relative low income BHC was consistently lower in rural settlements. The demographic group with the greatest difference between rural and urban settlements for proportion of the population in relative low income BHC was children, with rural settlements 11 percentage points lower than urban settlements (11% and 22% respectively).

After housing costs (AHC) have been included, the percentage that were in relative low income was still consistently lower in rural settlements across all demographic groups (working-age people, children and pensioners). In 2024/25, 13% of households in rural settlements were in relative low income AHC; this compares to 21% of households in urban settlements. The demographic group with the greatest difference between rural and urban settlements for proportion of the population in relative low income AHC was children, with rural settlements 14 percentage points lower than urban settlements (16% and 30% respectively).

When housing costs are included, the percentage of the population in relative low income increases for all demographic groups apart from pensioners. This is because a large proportion of pensioners live in homes that are owned outright so many have minimal housing costs. In 2024/25 the percentage of children in rural settlements in relative low income increased by 5 percentage points after housing costs were included while in urban settlements the increase was 8 percentage points. Working-age people saw a smaller increase to the percentage in relative low income after housing costs were applied (2 percentage points for rural settlements and 5 percentage points for urban). For pensioners, the percentage in rural settlements in relative low income decreased by 3 percentage points after housing costs were included while in urban settlements the decrease was 1 percentage point.

Statistics used to measure poverty due to low income

Households Below Average Income (HBAI) statistics give an insight into the standard of living of the household population of England. HBAI assumes that all individuals in the household benefit equally from the combined income of the household (Note C-1).

Box C-1: HBAI statistics – definition of relative low income Households are said to be in relative low income if their net equivalised disposable household income is below a threshold set at 60% of median income that year. Relative low income sets the threshold as a percentage of the average income, so it moves each year as average income moves. It is used to measure the number and percentage of individuals who have incomes that are a certain percentage below the average. The percentage of individuals in relative low income will increase if the average income: stays the same or rises and, relative to this, individuals on lowest incomes see their income fall, or rise to a lesser extent falls and individuals with the lowest incomes see their income fall more than the average income. The percentage of individuals in relative low income will decrease if the average income: stays the same or rises, while those with the lowest incomes see their income rise more than the average income falls and, relative to this, individuals with the lowest incomes see their income rise, fall to a lesser extent, or show no change. Individuals are said to be in relative low income if they live in a household with an income that is low relative to other households. Relative low income is determined by whether the income is below 60% of median income (the income earned by the household in the middle of the distribution in a given year). This can be determined before or after housing costs. Box C-1 gives more information on relative low income.

Individuals are said to be in absolute low income if they live in a household with an income that is below a level that was the relative low-income threshold in a specific reference year, adjusted for inflation. From 2024/25 the reference year has changed to 2024/25 following methodological changes in the production of these statistics, prior to this it was 2010/11. This means that for 2024/25 data the proportions of the household population in relative low income and absolute low income will be the same. Absolute low income can be determined before or after housing costs. Box C-2 gives more information on relative low income and the change to the reference year. Box C-2: HBAI statistics – definition of relative low income Households are said to be in absolute low income if their net equivalised disposable household income is below 60% of the median income of a specific reference year, adjusted for inflation. Absolute low income sets the low-income line to a given year then adjusts it each year with inflation as measured by variants of the Retail Prices Index (RPI). This measures the percentage of individuals who are below a certain standard of living in the UK (as measured by income). Following the integration of administrative data into the Family Resources Survey from the March 2026 DWP HBAI publication, the reference year for absolute low income has changed from 2010/11 to 2024/25. This means that for the 2024/25 figures presented in this section the proportions for relative low income and absolute income will be exactly the same.

From the March 2026 Family Resources Survey (FRS) publication, administrative data has been integrated into the FRS to replace survey responses for the major Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) benefits. This has reduced the under-reporting of benefits that was previously seen in the FRS (and therefore HBAI) and improved data quality in both datasets. It is this integration of administrative data into the FRS that has driven the shift in reference year for absolute low income from 2010/11 to 2024/25.

Poverty analysis technical note

Figures are presented on the percentage living in relative and absolute low income for households overall, and separately for working-age adults, children and pensioners. These statistics are one of the measures used to assess changes to living standards by examining low income, income inequality and poverty. Figures are presented as before and after housing costs.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) reports that before housing costs measures (Note C-1 explains what is included in housing costs) allow an assessment of the relative standard of living of those individuals who are actually benefiting from a better quality of housing by paying more for better accommodation, and income growth over time incorporates improvements in living standards where higher costs reflect improvements in the quality of housing.

After housing costs measures (Note C-1 explains what is included in housing costs) allow an assessment of living standards of individuals whose housing costs are high relative to the quality of their accommodation, and income growth over time may also overstate improvements in living standards for low-income groups, as a rise in housing benefit to offset higher rents (for a given quality of accommodation) would be counted as an income rise.

Both before and after housing costs measures can be used to examine relative and absolute low income for households.

DWP says that the preferred measure to examine relative and absolute low income for both the working-age population (those aged between 16 and 64) and children is before housing costs. This is because the after housing costs measures can underestimate the true living standard of families who choose to spend more on housing to attain a higher standard of accommodation.

DWP says that the preferred measure of low income for pensioners is based on incomes measured after housing costs, as a significant percentage of pensioners own their own home. The figures for both urban and rural areas show that the percentage of pensioners in relative or absolute low income was lower after housing costs, than before housing costs.

These rural statistics are based on relative low income (Note C-2) and absolute low income (Note C-3). DWP also reports on measures of ‘low income and material deprivation’ and ‘persistent poverty’.

Relative low income before housing costs (BHC)

The bar chart in Figure C‑1 shows the percentage of the population in relative low income before housing costs by demographic group for 2024/25. Rural settlements had a lower proportion of the population in relative low income (BHC) than urban settlements for all demographic groups.

Figure C‑1: Bar chart showing proportion of population in relative low income for 2024/25, before housing costs, by demographic and 2021 rural-urban classification (Note C-1, Note C-3, Note C-4, Box C-1)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the columns.

The chart can be summarised as follows:

In rural settlements, the percentage of households in relative low income was 12% (BHC) compared with 17% in urban settlements.

The percentage of working-age people (aged 16 to 64) in rural settlements in relative low income (BHC) was 11% and in urban settlements it was 15%.

The percentage of children in rural settlements in relative low income (BHC) was 11% and in urban settlements it was 22%. This difference of 11 percentage points between rural and urban settlements was the greatest of all the demographic groups.

The percentage of pensioners in rural settlements in relative low income (BHC) was 15% and in urban settlements it was 16%. This difference of 1 percentage point between rural and urban settlements was the smallest of all the demographic groups.

Relative low income after housing costs (AHC)

The bar chart in Figure C‑2 shows the percentage of the population in relative low income after housing costs by demographic group for 2024/25. As with relative low income before housing costs, rural settlements also had a lower proportion of the population in relative low income after housing costs than urban settlements for all demographic groups.

Figure C‑2: Bar chart showing proportion of population in relative low income for 2024/25, after housing costs, by demographic and 2021 rural-urban classification (Note C-1, Note C-3, Note C-4, Box C-2)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the columns.

The chart can be summarised as follows:

In rural settlements, the percentage of households in relative low income was 13% (AHC) compared with 21% in urban settlements.

The percentage of working-age people (aged 16 to 64) in rural settlements in relative low income (AHC) was 13% and in urban settlements it was 20%.

The percentage of children in rural settlements in relative low income (AHC) was 16% and in urban settlements it was 30%. This difference of 14 percentage points between rural and urban settlements was the greatest of all the demographic groups.

The percentage of pensioners in rural settlements in relative low income (AHC) was 12% and in urban settlements it was 15%. This difference of 3 percentage points between rural and urban settlements was the smallest of all the demographic groups.

The bar chart in Figure C‑3 shows the impact of housing costs on relative low income by measuring the change, in percentage points, before and after housing costs for both rural and urban settlements by demographic group. It should be noted that the before and after housing cost measures are based relative to different thresholds, being 60% of median income levels before and after housing costs, respectively. This shows that in most cases the inclusion of housing costs increases the proportion of the population in relative low income, and the increase is greater for urban areas. However, the reverse is true for pensioners as the proportion in relative low income decreases after housing costs have been included. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) states this is because over three-quarters of pensioners live in homes that are owned outright and therefore face minimal housing costs (compared with a quarter of working-age adults). See the DWP report ‘Households Below Average Income (HBAI) statistics’ for more detail.

Figure C‑3: Bar chart showing impact (percentage point change) of housing costs on the proportion of population in relative low income for 2024/25 by demographic and 2021 rural-urban classification (Note C-1, Note C-3, Note C-4)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the columns.

The chart can be summarised as follows:

In rural settlements, the percentage of households in relative low income increased by 1 percentage point when housing costs were included compared with an increase of 4 percentage points in urban settlements.

The percentage of working-age people in rural settlements in relative low income increased by 2 percentage points after housing costs were included while in urban settlements the increase was 5 percentage points.

The percentage of children in rural settlements in relative low income increased by 5 percentage points after housing costs were included while in urban settlements the increase was 8 percentage points. These increases of 5 and 8 percentage points respectively for rural and urban settlements showed the greatest impact following the inclusion of housing costs.

While all other demographic groups saw an increase in the proportion of the population in relative low income after housing costs, for pensioners the inclusion of housing costs causes the proportion of population in relative low income to fall. The percentage of pensioners in rural settlements in relative low income decreased by 3 percentage points after housing costs were included while in urban settlements the decrease was 1 percentage point. This is because a large proportion of pensioners live in homes that are owned outright so they have minimal housing costs.

Poverty due to low income - explanatory notes

Note C-1

HBAI statistics – background information

Households Below Average Income (HBAI) uses net disposable weekly household income, after adjusting for the household size and composition, as an assessment for material living standards - the level of consumption of goods and services that people could attain given the net income of the household in which they live. In order to allow comparisons of the living standards of different types of households, income is adjusted to take into account variations in the size and composition of the households in a process known as equivalisation. The unit of analysis is the individual.

Housing costs are made up of rent (gross of housing benefit); water rates, community water charges and council water charges; mortgage interest payments (net of tax relief); structural insurance premiums (for owner occupiers); and ground rent and service charges.

Further information on HBAI statistics can be found at: Households below average income (HBAI) statistics document on GOV.UK.

Note C-2

The Child Poverty Act 2010, Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission

The relative low income target in the Child Poverty Act 2010, (section 3), is that less than 10% of children who live in qualifying households live in households that fall within the relevant income group. For the purposes of this analysis, a household falls within the relevant income group – in relation to a financial year – if its equivalised net income for the financial year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for the financial year.

Note C-3

Source data: Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), bespoke data request.

Note C-4

For this analysis DWP define the working-age population as those aged between 16 and 64. Children and Pensioners are therefore those younger than 16 and older than 64 respectively.

Note C-5

Current analysis is based on the 2021 rural-urban classification and therefore is not directly comparable with poverty analysis in previous versions of the Rural Digest which use the 2011 rural-urban classification.

Household expenditure

Rural households have a higher average income than Urban households, but this difference is more than offset by higher average household expenditure, particularly on transport.

Key findings – Household expenditure

Rural households earn more, but they have to spend more, than urban households

In 2023/24, Rural households had an average income around £75 per week more than Urban households. However, the average expenditure for Rural households was around £88 per week more.

Rural households on average spend 64% of their post-tax income on household expenditure before any mortgage payments. Whereas Urban households on average spend 60% of their post-tax income on household expenditure before any mortgage payments.

Rural households spend more on food and transport than urban households

The average weekly food bill is £4 per week more in Rural areas than in Urban areas.

Rural households spend on average £33 a week more on transport costs than Urban households.

Summary

Household expenditure can be evaluated alongside disposable income (income after tax). As long as most people are living within their means, levels of household expenditure should be strongly dependent on disposable income.

In 2023/24, households in Rural areas had a higher average weekly income after tax (£963 per week) than Urban households (£888 per week). However, household expenditure was also higher for Rural households (£619 per week) than Urban households (£531 per week). In 2023/24, average household expenditure (excluding mortgage payments) as a proportion of disposable income was an average of 64% for Rural areas and 60% for Urban areas. Since 2014/15 this proportion has been higher in Rural areas than Urban areas in every year except 2017/18.

In 2023/24 on average Rural households spent a higher proportion of their disposable income on ‘transport’ (12%, £115 per week) than they did on ‘housing (including rent but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy’ (10%, £100 per week). Whereas for Urban areas, the highest proportion of household disposable income was spent on ‘housing (including rent but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy’ (14%, £123 per week). Between 2014/15 and 2023/24, households in Rural areas have consistently spent a smaller proportion of their disposable income on housing (including rent, but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy costs, but a larger proportion on transportation costs than households in Urban areas. These figures will be strongly affected by differences in types of tenure between Rural and Urban areas given the inclusion of rent but the exclusion of mortgage payments.

Nominal expenditure and disposable income

Levels of household expenditure should be strongly dependent on disposable income (income after tax). However, there are differences in absolute and proportional spending patterns, appearing to be affected by the types of settlements where households live.

As the bar charts in Figure D‑1 show, in 2023/24 when compared to Urban areas, households in Rural areas on average had higher weekly incomes after tax, but also higher levels of expenditure. The top bar chart compares average weekly incomes, with Rural areas having higher household incomes than Urban areas (£963 and £888 per week respectively). For comparison, the average weekly household income for England was £903 per week. In the bottom chart showing household expenditure, we see Rural areas having higher levels of household expenditure than Urban areas (£619 and £531 per week respectively). For comparison, average weekly household expenditure for England was £549. In summary, households in Rural areas had an average income after tax which was around £75 higher than the Urban average - but their average weekly household expenditure was £88 higher than the average expenditure for Urban households.

Figure D‑1: Bar charts showing average weekly income after tax (top chart) and household expenditure (bottom chart), by 2011 Rural-Urban Classification, England, financial year 2023/24

The scale is the same for both charts to aid comparison.

Average weekly household expenditure includes rent but excludes mortgage payments (Note D-1).

The bars charts in Figure D‑2 show the variation within Rural areas in average weekly household income and expenditure for the year ending March 2024. Households in Rural Hamlets and Isolated Dwellings had the highest weekly average incomes after tax at £1,161 per week, but they also had the highest average expenditure at £684 per week. Households in Rural Town and Fringe areas had the lowest average income after tax in Rural areas; at £878 per week, but they also had the lowest average expenditure in Rural areas; at £572 per week.

Figure D‑2: Bar charts showing average weekly income after tax (top chart) and household expenditure (bottom chart), by 2011 Rural-Urban Classification (Rural only), England, financial year ending 2023/24

Average weekly household expenditure includes rent but excludes mortgage payments (Note D-1).

As shown in Table D‑1, in 2023/24, average household expenditure (excluding mortgage payments) as a proportion of disposable income was an average of 64% in Rural areas compared to an average of 60% in Urban areas. Proportional average weekly expenditure showed a moderate drop across all settlement types in 2020/21 (likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic) followed by increasing levels until 2022/23 after which it has seen a small drop in Rural areas while Urban areas have remained the same.

Table D‑1: Average weekly expenditure (excluding mortgage payments) as a percentage of average weekly disposable income by Rural-Urban Classification for England, financial years 2019/20 to 2023/24 (Note D-5)

2019/20	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24
All Rural	72	55	60	65	64
All Urban	65	53	57	60	60
England	67	53	57	61	61

Figure D‑3 is a line chart that shows the average weekly expenditure as a percentage of disposable income for Rural and Urban areas between financial years 2014/15 and 2023/24. People living in Rural areas have consistently spent a higher proportion of their disposable income on goods and services than those in Urban areas, except for financial year 2017/18; during this year, the average weekly expenditure as a proportion of disposable income was 1 percentage point lower in Rural areas than in Urban areas.

The line chart can be summarised as follows:

At the start of the period shown (2014/15), weekly expenditure as proportion of income was on average 74% in Rural areas and 69% in Urban areas. Proportional levels of expenditure remained stable in Rural areas and fell slightly in Urban areas until 2016/17.

Between 2016/17 and 2017/18 weekly expenditure as proportion of income saw a sharp drop in Rural areas of 7 percentage points to 67%, increasing again to 73% in 2018/19. In Urban areas the proportion remained stable at 68% between 2016/17 and 2018/19.

Proportions started to decline in both Rural and Urban areas between 2018/19 and 2019/20, after which there was a sharp decrease in both Rural and Urban areas of 17 percentage points to 55% for Rural areas and 13 percentage points to 53% for Urban areas (2020/21). This is likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, where government-enforced lockdowns in early 2020 meant people had less need or opportunity to spend their money.

Between 2020/21 and 2022/23, average weekly expenditure as a proportion of weekly income increased in both Rural and Urban areas (to 65% and 60% respectively) however this is below pre-pandemic levels of expenditure for both Rural and Urban areas. Rural areas saw a small drop in average weekly expenditure as a proportion of weekly income in 2023/24 (to 64%) while the proportion for Urban areas has remained the same at 60%.

Figure D‑3: Line chart showing average weekly expenditure (including rent but excluding mortgage payments) as a percentage of average weekly disposable income by 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for England, financial years 2014/15 to 2023/24 (Note D-4)

Please note, Y axis starts at 40% and not 0%.

Expenditure on commodity or service groups

The following section uses ONS data on average household expenditure that has been grouped into 12 pre-defined commodity or service groups based on similar categories of spending.

Figure D‑4 is a bar chart showing that in 2023/24 households in Rural areas on average spent the greatest amount on transport costs at £115 per week (12% of their disposable income). This was followed by £100 per week on housing (including rent but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy, and £96 on recreation and culture (both were 10% of the household’s disposable income).

In Urban areas the bar chart in Figure D‑4 shows that households on average spent the greatest amount on housing (including rent but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy at £123 per week (14% of their disposable income), followed by transport costs (£83, which was 9% of disposable income) and food and non-alcoholic drinks (£70, which was 8% of disposable income).

Expenditure on housing will be strongly affected by differences in types of tenure between Rural and Urban areas given the inclusion of rent but the exclusion of mortgage payments.

Generally, households in Rural areas spent more than those in Urban areas across all the different service categories apart from on housing (including rent but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy on which Rural households spent on average £23 less per week than Urban households in 2023/24, and food and non-alcoholic drinks where Rural and Urban areas spent broadly the same (£74 and £70 respectively, 8% of disposable income for both). Housing costs will be strongly affected by differences in types of tenure between Rural and Urban areas given the inclusion of rent but the exclusion of mortgage payments.

Spending on transport sees the greatest difference between Rural and Urban areas with Rural households spending on average £33 more per week on transport costs than those in Urban households in 2023/24.

Figure D‑4: Bar chart showing average weekly household expenditure as a percentage of average weekly disposable income, by commodity or service and 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for England, financial year 2023/24 (Note D-3)

The legend is presented in the same order as the bars on the chart.

Average spend per category is included in the labels on the bars.

Communication, clothing and footwear, alcoholic drinks and tobacco, health, and education are not shown on the bar chart. All of these categories are 2% or below of total disposable income and have minimal differences between Rural and Urban areas.

The line charts in Figure D‑5 show the change in the proportional average weekly expenditure by commodity or service between 2014/15 and 2023/24. Line charts are provided for the four commodities or services that make up the greatest proportions of average disposal income in Rural areas.

The line charts can be summarised as follows:

Households in Rural areas spend the greatest proportion of their disposable income on transport costs, and have consistently spent a larger proportion of their disposable income on transport costs than those in Urban areas. In 2014/15, households in Rural areas spent 13.7% of their disposable income on transport, falling to 12.0% in 2023/24. In Urban areas the proportion of household income spent on transport has fallen from 10.5% in 2014/15 to 9.3% in 2023/24. This is a decrease of 1.7 percentage points in Rural areas which is slightly more than the decrease of 1.2 percentage points for Urban areas. The proportion of spend on transport costs fluctuated between 2014/15 and 2023/24 with Rural areas seeing a high of 14.5% in 2016/17 compared with a low of 9.2% in 2020/21. Urban areas also saw fluctuating spend on transport costs, ranging from 10.7% in 2016/17 to 7.4% in 2020/21.

Households in Rural areas have consistently spent a smaller proportion of their disposable income on housing (including rent but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy costs than those in Urban areas. Housing costs will be strongly affected by differences in types of tenure between Rural and Urban areas given the inclusion of rent but the exclusion of mortgage payments.

In 2014/15, households in Rural areas spent 9.5% of their disposable income on housing (including rent but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy rising to 10.4% in 2023/24. In Urban areas the proportion of household income spent has risen from 11.8% in 2014/15 to 13.8% in 2023/24. This is an increase of 0.9 percentage points in Rural areas which is less than the increase of 2.1 percentage points for Urban areas. The proportion of spend on housing (including rent but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy costs fluctuated between 2014/15 and 2023/24 with Rural areas seeing a low of 8.5% in 2017/18 compared with a high of 10.4% in 2022/23 and 2023/24. Urban areas also saw fluctuating spend on housing (including rent but excluding mortgage payments), water and energy costs, ranging from 11.0% in 2016/17 to 13.3% in 2022/23.

Households in Rural areas have consistently spent a larger proportion of their disposable income on recreation and culture costs than those in Urban areas. In 2014/15, households in Rural areas spent 12.5% of their disposable income on recreation and culture, falling to 10% in 2023/24. In Urban areas the proportion of household income spent has fallen from 10.1% in 2014/15 to 7.5% in 2022/23. This is a decrease of 2.5 percentage points in Rural areas which is nearly the same as the decrease of 2.6 percentage points for Urban areas. The proportion of spend on recreation costs fluctuated between 2014/15 and 2023/24 with a large drop seen in 2020/21, most likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rural areas saw a low of 7.1% in 2020/21 compared with a high of 12.5% in 2014/15. Urban areas also saw similar fluctuating spend on recreation and culture costs, ranging from a low of 5.5% in 2014/15 to a high of 10.2% in 2016/17.

There was little difference in the weekly expenditure on food and non-alcoholic drinks as a proportion of income between Rural and Urban areas from 2014/15 to 2023/24. In 2014/15, households in Rural areas spent 8.9% of their disposable income on food and non-alcoholic beverages, falling to 7.7% in 2023/24. In Urban areas the proportion of household income spent has fallen from 8.8% in 2014/15 to 7.9% in 2023/24. This is a decrease of 1.2 percentage points in Rural areas which is slightly higher than the decrease of 0.9 percentage point for Urban areas.

Figure D‑5: Line charts showing average weekly household expenditure as a percentage of average weekly disposable income, by commodity or service and 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for England, financial years 2014/15 to 2023/24 (Note D-3)

Y axes start at 4% not 0%. Commodities and services that are not represented are available in the Communities and Households data tables.

Household Expenditure - explanatory notes

Note D-1

Average weekly expenditure does not include mortgage payments. Data come from the ONS Living Costs and Food Survey which uses the Classification Of Individual Consumption by Purpose (COICOP) system to classify expenditure items. COICOP is an internationally agreed system of classification for reporting consumption expenditure within National Accounts and is used by other household budget surveys across the European Union. COICOP classified housing costs do not include, what is considered to be, non-consumption expenditure, for example: mortgage interest payments, mortgage capital repayments, mortgage protection premiums, council tax and domestic rates. The housing cost element of household expenditure generally relates to rental costs, household repairs and energy costs (water, electricity and gas).

Note D-2

The measure of income used here does not include withdrawal of savings, loans and money received in payment of loans, receipts from maturing insurance policies and proceeds from the sale of assets.

Note D-3

Transport costs include the purchase and operation of personal vehicles and fares paid on public vehicles. All journeys are recorded within the transport section. Recreation costs include for example sports equipment, admission charges, audio-visual equipment, the purchase of CDs, computer equipment and games, pets and horticultural equipment.

Note D-4

The reporting period for weekly expenditure and income changed at the end of 2014 and moved from calendar year (ending in December) to financial year (ending in March). All other variables stayed the same. In this report we only present the data for financial years from 2014/15 onwards but the data for calendar years 2011 to 2014 are included in the Communities and Households data tables.

Note D-5

Table D-1 shows the latest 5 years of data - the full time series can be found within our supplementary tables; the average weekly household expenditure data behind the figures in this section, broken down by Rural-Urban classification are available in available in the Communities and Households data tables.

Note D-6

Source for this section, Office for National Statistics, Living Costs and Food Survey: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/methodologies/livingcostsandfoodsurvey)

Police recorded crime and outcomes

In Predominantly Rural areas police recorded crimes relative to population are generally lower than in Predominantly Urban areas; the proportion of offences resulting in a charge/summons are slightly higher than in Predominantly Urban areas.

Key findings – Police recorded crime and outcomes

Rates of recorded crime are lower in rural areas

For the year ending March 2024, police recorded 59 crimes per 1,000 population (excluding fraud) in Predominantly Rural areas and 99 crimes per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

In the most Rural areas (Mainly Rural) police recorded crime rates were less than half that of the most Urban areas outside of London (52 and 106 crimes per 10,000 population respectively).

Recorded crime rates are rising in rural areas

In Predominantly Rural areas, there were 3.4 more crimes per 1,000 population recorded in 2023/24 than in 2022/23.

However, in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London, recorded crime rates have fallen by 11.2 recorded crimes over the same period of time.

Rates for crimes leading to a charge or summons are higher in rural areas

The proportion of offences leading to a charge or summons within the same three months from when the crime was reported was 9% for Predominantly Rural areas in 2023/24 (and 6% for Predominantly Urban areas).

Crime rates differ depending on the type of crime

In 2022/23, more Class B drugs were seized than any other class; in Predominantly Rural areas there were 202 seizures of Class B drugs per 100,000 population, compared with 213 seizures per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas. There were proportionally more seizures of Class A or Class C drugs in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas, but numbers were much lower.

The total number of fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population in 2022/23 was higher in Predominantly Urban areas than in Predominantly Rural areas (2,441 and 686 per 100,000 population respectively).

Summary

Police recorded crime rates can supplement the information on people’s experience of crime offered by the Crime Survey. They will be subject to changes in police recording and in people reporting crimes.

For the year ending March 2024, police recorded 59 crimes per 1,000 population (excluding fraud) in Rural areas and 99 crimes per 1,000 population in Urban areas outside of London – a difference of 40 crimes per 1,000 population. When crimes are grouped as: (1) personal crime, (2) robbery/theft, and (3) societal crime, then the data showed “violence without injury”, “shoplifting” and “criminal damage and arson” were the most commonly recorded crimes for each of these three categories, respectively.

Overall, the police recorded crime rate in England was lower in 2023/24 than it was in the previous year (2022/23). In Predominantly Rural areas, there were 3.4 more crimes per 1,000 population recorded in 2023/24 than in 2022/23 and in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London, there were 11.2 fewer crimes recorded per 1,000 population in 2023/24 than in 2022/23.

Over the period 2020/21 to 2023/24, total police recorded crime rates have consistently been lower in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London. London has had the highest recorded crime rate since 2022/23; prior to this, it was Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

Relatively few incidents recorded in 2023/24 resulted in the offender getting charged/summonsed within the same three months from when the crime was reported; just 9% of all offences resulted in a charge or summons in Predominantly Rural areas, compared with 6% in Predominantly Urban areas.

There are specific Digest sections covering the crime rates and outcomes over time for drug offences, firearm offences, knife crime, hate crime and fly-tipping. Police forces have seized fewer Class B drugs (the most common type) per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas. Imitation firearms were the most common weapon type involved in firearm-enabled crime (which has been consistently less prevalent in Predominantly Rural areas than Predominantly Urban areas). In 2022/23, fly-tipping occurred most commonly on highways, with general household “black bag” waste being the most commonly reported waste type, and the most commonly reported size of the deposit being a small van load.

Crime rates in 2023/24

The police recorded crime rate was lower in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas in the period from April 2023 to March 2024. Table E‑1 shows that in Predominantly Rural areas overall, the police recorded 59 crimes per 1,000 population (excluding fraud) in 2023/24; this is 40 crimes per 1,000 population less than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London, and 46 crimes per 1,000 population less than in London.

Table E‑1: Police recorded crimes per 1,000 population, by Community Safety Partnership area Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2024 (Note E-2, Note E-4)

Total recorded crime per 1,000 population
Predominantly Rural	59
Predominantly Urban (excluding London)	99
London	105
England	87

The bar chart in Figure E‑1 shows that in the most Rural areas (Mainly Rural), the police recorded 54 fewer crimes per 1,000 people (excluding fraud) than in the most Urban areas outside of London (Urban Conurbation); the crime rates for these settlement types were 52 offences per 1,000 population and 106 offences per 1,000 population respectively.

Figure E‑1: Bar chart showing total police recorded crime per 1,000 population, by Community Safety Partnership area detailed Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2024 (Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4)

Police recorded crimes are grouped into a number of different categories, including: violence against the person (which includes homicide, death or serious injury caused by illegal driving, violence with or without injury, and stalking and harassment); sexual offences; robbery; theft offences (which includes both residential and non-residential burglary, vehicle offences, theft from the person, bicycle theft, shoplifting, and all other theft offences); criminal damage and arson; drug offences; possession of weapon offences; public order offences; miscellaneous crimes against society. These can be combined into personal crime, robbery/theft, and societal crime in order to aid analysis and comparison.

All police recorded offences involving violence against the person or sexual offences have been classed in this publication as personal crime. The offence rate for personal crimes is shown in the bar chart in Figure E‑2.

In 2023/24, “violence without injury” was the most commonly recorded personal crime, with 9.4 crimes recorded per 1,000 people in Predominantly Rural areas (and 15.7 crimes per 1,000 people in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London).

This is followed by “stalking and harassment”, for which there were 7.7 offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas and 12.7 offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

There were 6.9 occurrences of “violence with injury” per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, compared to 10.4 offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

The least commonly recorded crimes were “homicide” and “death/serious injury by illegal driving”, for which there were fewer than 0.1 crimes per 1,000 people in Predominantly Rural areas (Note E-2). Of the crimes that are detailed on the bar chart, the least commonly recorded crimes were “sexual offences”; there were 2.5 offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas and 3.4 offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

Figure E‑2: Bar chart showing police recorded personal crimes per 1,000 population, by Community Safety Partnership area Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2024 (Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered bars.

“Homicide” and “Death/serious injury by illegal driving” have been excluded from the chart as there were fewer than 0.1 incidents per 1,000 population in 2023/24.

All police recorded offences involving robbery, burglary/theft, and vehicle offences have been classed in this publication as robbery/theft. The bar chart in Figure E‑3 shows the number of robbery/theft offences recorded in 2023/24. The scale is the same as in Figure E‑2 to enable fair comparisons.

The most commonly recorded specific crime in 2023/24 was “shoplifting”; there were 4.9 offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas (and 8.6 per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London).

This is followed by “residential burglary”, for which there were 4.4 offences per 1,000 households in Predominantly Rural areas and 8.4 offences per 1,000 households in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

There were 3.1 “vehicle offences” per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas in 2023/24, compared to 6.6 offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

For “non-residential burglary”, “bicycle theft”, and “robbery”, there were 1.0 or fewer offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas in 2023/24. In Predominantly Urban areas outside of London, there were fewer than 1.5 offences per 1,000 population for these offence groups.

The least commonly recorded crime in Predominantly Rural areas was “theft from the person”, for which there were 0.3 offences per 1,000 population (and 1.0 offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London).

Figure E‑3: Bar chart showing police recorded robbery/theft offences per 1,000 population/households, by Community Safety Partnership area Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2024 (Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered bars. The offence rate for residential burglary is calculated per 1,000 households – as indicated by (HH) - but for all other robbery/theft offences, the crime rate is calculated per 1,000 population.

All police recorded offences involving criminal damage, drugs, weapons, and other crimes against society are classed in this publication as societal crime. The bar chart in Figure E‑4 shows the police recorded crime rate for societal crimes in 2023/24. The scale is the same as in Figure E‑2 and Figure E‑3 to enable fair comparisons.

The most commonly recorded societal crime in Predominantly Rural areas was “criminal damage and arson”, for which there were 6.5 crimes recorded per 1,000 population; this compares with 9.3 crimes recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London. The most commonly recorded societal crimes in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London were “public order offences”, for which there were 9.4 crimes recorded per 1,000 population (and 5.2 crimes per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas).

In Predominantly Rural areas, there were 1.5 offences per 1,000 population for both “drug offences” and “miscellaneous crimes against society” in 2023/24. In Predominantly Urban areas outside of London, for these offence groups there were 3.4 and 2.2 offences per 1,000 population, respectively.

The least commonly recorded crimes were “possession of weapons offences”, for which there were 0.6 offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas (and 1.2 offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London).

Figure E‑4: Bar chart showing police recorded societal crimes per 1,000 population, by Community Safety Partnership area Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2024 (Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered bars.

Table E‑2 shows the Community Safety Partnership areas with the highest recorded crime rates in England, by Rural-Urban Classification, as of year ending March 2024.

County Durham had the highest crime rate in Predominantly Rural areas in 2023/24, with 98 offences recorded per 1,000 population. In Urban with Significant Rural areas, Redcar and Cleveland had the highest crime rate, with 115 offences recorded per 1,000 population.

Outside of London, Middlesbrough had the highest crime rate in Predominantly Urban areas, with 168 offences recorded per 1,000 population.

Table E‑2: Community Safety Partnership areas with the highest police recorded crime rate (per 1,000 population), by broad Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2024 (Note E-2, Note E-4)

Area	Offences per 1,000 population
Predominantly Rural	County Durham	98
Urban with Significant Rural	Redcar and Cleveland	115
Predominantly Urban (excluding London)	Middlesbrough	168
London	Westminster	446
England	Westminster	446

Westminster had the highest crime rate in London, with 446 offences recorded per 1,000 population in 2023/24; however, as Westminster is a tourist destination, the actual population of the area at any given time is likely to be considerably higher than the resident population. Furthermore, as many of these crimes may be committed by people who are not usual residents, the offence rate in Westminster (and any other tourist destinations) should be used with caution.

Table E‑3 shows the Community Safety Partnership areas with the lowest recorded crime rates in England, by Rural-Urban Classification, as of year ending March 2024.

Table E‑3: Community Safety Partnership areas with the lowest police recorded crime rate (per 1,000 population), by broad Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2024 (Note E-2, Note E-4)

Area	Offences per 1,000 population
Predominantly Rural	Isles of Scilly	31
Urban with Significant Rural	Broadland	38
Predominantly Urban (excluding London)	Wokingham	46
London	Richmond upon Thames	61
England	Isles of Scilly	31

The Isles of Scilly had the lowest crime rate in Predominantly Rural areas in 2023/24, with 31 offences recorded per 1,000 population. In Urban with Significant Rural areas, Broadland had the lowest crime rate, with 38 offences recorded per 1,000 population. Wokingham had the lowest crime rate in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London (46 offences per 1,000 population). In London, Richmond upon Thames had the lowest crime rate, with 61 offences per 1,000 population.

Crime rates: short-term trends

Overall, the police recorded crime rate was lower in 2023/24 than it was in the previous financial year (2022/23), except in Predominantly Rural areas; this is shown in Table E‑4. In Predominantly Rural areas, there were 3.4 more crimes per 1,000 population recorded in 2023/24 than in 2022/23. In Predominantly Urban areas outside of London, there were 11.2 fewer crimes per 1,000 population recorded in 2023/24 than in 2022/23.

Table E‑4: Change in total police recorded crimes per 1,000 population (excluding fraud), by Community Safety Partnership area Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2023 to year ending March 2024 (Note E-1, Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4)

Total recorded crime per 1,000 population in 2022/23	Total recorded crime per 1,000 population in 2023/24	Change
Predominantly Rural	55.4	58.8	3.4	
Predominantly Urban (excluding London)	110.1	98.9	-11.2	
London	126.8	105.1	-21.7	
England	91.4	87.4	-4.0	

Notes

In Table E-4, crime rates are rounded to the nearest 0.1 offences recorded per 1,000 population, and percentage change is rounded to the nearest 0.1%.

The percentage change in police recorded crime rate is described with symbols for where it increased (), decreased () or stayed the same (—). Indication of change is based on a ±3.0% threshold. Multiple arrows (,) indicate a change of ±6.0% or more.

Crime rates: long-term trends

The line chart in Figure E‑5 shows the change in total police recorded crime rates between 2020/21 and 2023/24. The police recorded crime rate has been consistently lower in Predominantly Rural areas than in the rest of England.

Figure E‑5: Line chart showing the change in total police recorded crimes per 1,000 population (excluding fraud), by Community Safety Partnership area broad Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2021 to year ending March 2024 (Note E-1, Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4)

In Predominantly Rural areas, there were 53 offences recorded per 1,000 population in 2020/21. This increased to 60 offences per 1,000 population in 2021/22, then fell to 55 offences per 1,000 population in 2022/23. The Rural crime rate increased to 59 offences per 1,000 population in 2023/24; this is an overall increase of 5 offences per 1,000 population since 2020/21.

In Predominantly Urban areas outside of London, there were 86 offences recorded per 1,000 population in 2020/21 (33 more per 1,000 population than in Predominantly Rural areas). This increased to 103 offences per 1,000 population in 2021/22, then increased to 110 per 1,000 population in 2022/23. The Urban crime rate fell to 99 offences per 1,000 population in 2023/24 (40 more per 1,000 population than in Predominantly Rural areas); this is an overall increase of 13 offences per 1,000 population since 2020/21.

In London, there were 83 offences recorded per 1,000 population in 2020/21. This increased to 93 offences per 1,000 population in 2021/22, then increased to 127 offences per 1,000 population in 2022/23. The London crime rate fell to 105 offences per 1,000 population in 2023/24; this is an overall increase of 22 offences per 1,000 population since 2020/21.

The line charts in Figure E‑6 show the change in police recorded crime rates for personal crime (left chart), robbery/theft (middle chart), and societal crime (right chart) between 2020/21 and 2023/24. It is detailed as follows:

In terms of personal crime (left chart), in 2020/21 there were 14 fewer offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London (24 and 38 crimes per 1,000 population, respectively). This gap widened in 2021/22, in that there were 18 fewer offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London. The gap widened further in 2022/23 as there were 22 fewer offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

In 2023/24, there were 16 fewer offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London (27 and 42 crimes per 1,000 population, respectively). This means that overall, there were 3 more offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas (and 4 more offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London) in 2023/24 than in 2020/21.

There were 10 fewer robbery/theft offences (middle chart) in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London in 2020/21 (14 and 23 crimes per 1,000 population, respectively).

This gap widened in 2021/22, in that there were 13 fewer offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London. The gap widened further in 2022/23 as there were 18 fewer offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

In 2023/24, there were 14 fewer offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London (17 and 31 crimes per 1,000 population, respectively). There were 3 more offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas (and 8 more offences per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London) in 2023/24 than in 2020/21.

In 2020/21, there were 9 fewer societal crimes (right chart) recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London (16 and 25 crimes per 1,000 population, respectively).

This gap widened in 2021/22, in that there were 12 fewer offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London. The gap widened even further in 2022/23 as there were 15 fewer offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London.

In 2023/24, there were 10 fewer offences recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London (15 and 26 crimes per 1,000 population, respectively). There was 1 less offence recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas (and 1 more offence recorded per 1,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas outside of London) in 2023/24 than in 2020/21.

Figure E‑6: Line charts showing police recorded crime rates for personal crimes (left chart), robbery/theft offences (middle chart), and societal crimes (right chart), per 1,000 population/ households, by Community Safety Partnership area Rural-Urban Classification, year ending March 2021 to year ending March 2024 (Note E-1, Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4)

Personal and Societal crime rates are measured per 1,000 population, whilst Robbery/theft rates are measured per 1,000 population/households due to the data given on residential burglaries.

Crime outcomes

Investigative case outcomes are assigned to notifiable offences recorded by the police forces in England; this can highlight the differences in outcome between Rural and Urban areas. The data presented provide a snapshot, at the time of analysis, of the current case status of offences recorded during the year ending March 2024. The outcomes specified within this section were recorded in the same period in which the offence was recorded; this allows crimes to be traced from when they were recorded to when they were given the outcome.

Figure E‑7 shows the proportion of crimes assigned to each outcome group in 2023/24:

41% of offences in Predominantly Rural areas (and 37% of offences in Predominantly Urban areas) were facing evidential difficulties.

32% of offences in Predominantly Rural areas (and 43% of offences in Predominantly Urban areas) had not yet identified a suspect.

9% of offences in Predominantly Rural areas (and 6% of offences in Predominantly Urban areas) resulted in a charge/summons.

7% of offences in Predominantly Rural areas (and 8% of offences in Predominantly Urban areas) had not yet been assigned an outcome.

For crimes that were settled out of court, resulted in no further action, were taken into consideration, or were transferred for further investigation by another body, there were fewer than 5% of offences in each outcome group.

Figure E‑7: Bar chart showing the rate of outcomes for offences recorded in each quarter, by offence group and Police Force Area Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2023 (Note E-2, Note E-4, Note E-6)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered bars. Only outcome rates greater than 5% are presented on the chart.

Specific crimes

The differences in crime rates and outcomes over time for drug offences, firearm offences, knife crime, hate crime and fly-tipping between Predominantly Rural and Predominantly Urban areas are detailed below.

Drug offences

The Home Office reports data on the seizure of drugs in England and Wales. A single drug seizure can involve more than one type of drug. Table E-5 shows some examples of drugs included within each class, where Class A represents substances most likely to result in the most serious harm.

Table E‑5: Examples of controlled drugs within each class

Examples of drugs
Class A	Cocaine, Crack, Ecstasy (MDMA), Heroin, LSD, Methadone, Morphine
Class B	Cannabis, Amphetamines, Barbiturates, Ketamine, non-injected Mephedrone
Class C	Anabolic Steroids, Benzodiazepines, GHB, Temazepam

It should be noted that certain Class C controlled drugs (such as anabolic steroids, Valium, etc.) can be obtained through a legitimate doctor’s prescription and therefore seizures are only recorded when they are obtained/possessed illegitimately.

The bar chart in Figure E‑8 shows the total number of different classes of drugs seized per 100,000 population in 2022/23; there were proportionally fewer seizures of Class B drugs in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas, but there were proportionally more seizures of Class A or Class C drugs.

For all settlement types, more Class B drugs were seized than any other class; in Predominantly Rural areas, there were 202 seizures of Class B drugs per 100,000 population, compared with 213 seizures per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

In 2022/23, there were 52 seizures of Class A drugs per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, compared with 48 seizures per 100,000 population by police forces in Predominantly Urban areas.

In Predominantly Rural areas there were 11 seizures of Class C drugs per 100,000 population, compared with 8 seizures per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

Figure E‑8: Bar chart showing drug seizures per 100,000 population, by drug classification and Police Force Area broad Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2023 (Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4, Note E-6)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered columns.

Table E‑5 provides examples of drugs within each classification.

The change in rate of drug seizures per 100,000 population by Police Force Area in England is presented as a line chart in Figure E‑9. Generally, there were proportionally fewer seizures in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas throughout the time series, however this was not the case in the most recent data.

In 2016/17, there were 225 drug seizures per 100,000 population in both Predominantly Rural and Predominantly Urban Police Force Areas. There were proportionally fewer seizures in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas in 2017/18, but in 2018/19, seizure rates were similar once again. In 2019/20 and 2020/21, there were proportionally fewer drug seizures in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas (48 per 100,000 population fewer in 2019/20; 40 per 100,000 population fewer in 2020/21). In 2021/22, drug seizure rates were similar in Predominantly Rural and Predominantly Urban police forces, with 310 and 306 seizures per 100,000 population respectively.

In 2022/23, police forces in Predominantly Rural areas made 307 drug seizures per 100,000 population, compared to 271 seizures per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

Figure E‑9: Line chart showing the change in drug seizures per 100,000 population, by Police Force Area broad Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2017 to year ending March 2023 (Note E-1, Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4, Note E-6)

The line chart in Figure E‑10 shows the proportion of drug-related offences that resulted in the suspect being charged or summonsed between 2011/12 and 2023/24. This includes trafficking in controlled drugs, possession of controlled drugs, and any other drug-related offences. The change in the charge/summons rate of drug offences can be summarised as follows:

In 2011/12, proportionally more drug offences resulted in a charge/summons in Predominantly Rural areas (39%) than in Predominantly Urban areas (36%).

From 2012/13 to 2016/17, fewer drug offences resulted in a charge/summons in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas.

In 2017/18 and 2018/19, the charge/summons rate was equal in Predominantly Rural and Predominantly Urban areas (36% and 34% respectively) for drug-related offences.

Between 2019/20 and 2023/24, proportionally more drug offences resulted in a charge/summons in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas. In 2023/24, the charge/summons rate was 7 percentage points higher for police forces in Predominantly Rural areas (26%) than in Predominantly Urban areas (19%) for drug-related offences.

Figure E‑10: Line chart showing the proportion of drug offences that resulted in a charge or summons, by Police Force Area broad Rural-Urban Classification, year ending March 2012 to year ending March 2024 (Note E-1, Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4, Note E-6)

Firearm crime

Offences involving a firearm are recorded as those where a firearm has been fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used as a threat. Data also include imitation firearms, low-powered weapons which fire small plastic pellets (BB guns, soft air weapons), gas/pepper spray, stun guns and other weapons. Offences involving air weapons are not included.

The line chart in Figure E‑11 shows the total number of firearm offences recorded per 100,000 population between 2015/16 and 2023/24. The rate of firearm offences recorded was consistently lower in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas.

In 2015/16, there were 3.3 firearm offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, compared to 13.0 offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

The gap widened in 2016/17, such that there were 12.3 fewer offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas.

The gap continued to widen into 2017/18,but was reduced in 2018/19 due to an increase in firearm offences recorded in Predominantly Rural areas (4.7 offences per 100,000 population).

The gap between offences recorded was widest in 2019/20, with 12.8 fewer offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas compared to Predominantly Urban areas; this was driven by an increase in firearm offences in Predominantly Urban areas (17.5 offences per 100,000 population), as the offence rate in Predominantly Rural areas remained the same from 2018/19 to 2020/21.

In 2020/21, the offence rate in Predominantly Urban areas fell to 13.4 offences per 100,000 population, effectively reducing the gap between settlement types.

Between 2021/22 and 2023/24, offence rates remained fairly stable; in 2023/24, there were 4.2 firearm offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, and 14.6 offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

Figure E‑11: Line chart showing police recorded firearm offences per 100,000 population, by Police Force Area broad Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2016 to year ending March 2024 (Note E-1, Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4, Note E-6, Note E-7)

The bar chart in Figure E‑12 shows the number of firearm offences per 100,000 population in 2023/24 by weapon category. The most commonly recorded firearm offence involved the use of imitation firearms, for which there were 2.4 offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, and 5.6 offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

For police forces in Predominantly Rural areas, there were:

3.3 fewer offences recorded per 100,000 population involving imitation firearms than in Predominantly Urban areas,

4.3 fewer offences recorded per 100,000 population involving handguns than in Predominantly Urban areas,

0.4 fewer offences recorded per 100,000 population involving shotguns than in Predominantly Urban areas,

A similar rate of offences recorded involving rifles as in Predominantly Urban areas,

0.7 fewer offences recorded per 100,000 population involving other firearms than in Predominantly Urban areas,

1.8 fewer offences recorded per 100,000 population involving firearms that could not be identified than in Predominantly Urban areas.

Figure E‑12: Bar chart showing police recorded firearm offences per 100,000 population, by weapon category and Police Force Area Rural-Urban Classification, year ending March 2024 (Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4, Note E-6, Note E-7)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered columns.

Knife crime

Data on offences involving knives or sharp instruments include: homicide, attempted murder, threats to kill, assault with injury/intent to cause serious harm, robbery, rape, and sexual assault. The line chart in Figure E‑13 presents the number of knife or sharp instrument offences recorded by the police for these selected offences per 100,000 population. There were fewer knife-enabled offences recorded per 100,000 population by police forces in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas between 2018/19 and 2023/24.

The time series can be summarised as follows:

In 2018/19, there were 46 knife-enabled offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, compared to 107 offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

The gap between these settlement types widened in 2019/20, as there were 70 fewer offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas.

In 2020/21, the gap effectively halved due to a sharp decrease in the offence rate in Predominantly Urban areas; there were 45 knife-enabled offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, and 81 offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

Between 2021/22 and 2023/24, the offence rate in Predominantly Rural areas remained fairly stable, whilst in Predominantly Urban areas there was a gradual increase over time. In 2023/24, there were 60 fewer knife-enabled offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas (49 offences per 100,000 population) than in Predominantly Urban areas (109 offences per 100,000 population).

Figure E‑13: Line chart showing police recorded knife-enabled offences per 100,000 population, by Police Force Area Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2019 to year ending March 2024 (Note E-1, Note E-2, Note E-3, Note E-4, Note E-6, Note E-8)

Hate crime

Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic is defined as a hate crime. Figure E‑14 shows the number of hate crimes recorded per 100,000 population by motivating factor (i.e., race, sexual orientation, disability, religion, transgender identity) in 2022/23. There were fewer police recorded hate crimes per 100,000 population across all selected motivating factors in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas in 2022/23.

Across all areas, race was the largest motivating factor for hate crime; there were 91 offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, and 231 offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

The other selected motivating factors can be summarised as follows; in 2022/23 in Predominantly Rural areas, there were:

22 fewer hate crimes related to sexual orientation recorded per 100,000 population (29 offences per 100,000 population) than in Predominantly Urban areas (51 offences per 100,000 population),

7 fewer hate crimes related to disability recorded per 100,000 population (16 offences per 100,000 population) than in Predominantly Urban areas (23 offences per 100,000 population),

15 fewer hate crimes related to religion recorded per 100,000 population (6 offences per 100,000 population) than in Predominantly Urban areas (21 offences per 100,000 population),

2 fewer hate crimes related to transgender identity recorded per 100,000 population (6 offences per 100,000 population) than in Predominantly Urban areas (8 offences per 100,000 population).

Figure E‑14: Bar chart showing police recorded hate crimes per 100,000 population, by motivating factor and Police Force Area Rural-Urban Classification, year ending March 2023 (Note E-2, Note E-4, Note E-6)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered columns.

The line chart in Figure E‑15 shows the total number of hate crime offences recorded per 100,000 population between 2015/16 and 2021/22.

Figure E‑15: Line chart showing police recorded hate crimes per 100,000 population, by Police Force Area Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2016 to year ending March 2023 (Note E-1, Note E-2, Note E-4, Note E-6)

There were consistently fewer police recorded hate crime offences in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas, and the gap is widening over time; in 2015/16, there were 63 fewer offences recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas, but in 2021/22, there were 172 fewer police recorded offences per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas. However, the number of hate crime offences recorded has been increasing across both Predominantly Rural and Predominantly Urban areas between 2015/16 and 2021/22.

Fly-tipping

Illegal dumping, also known as fly-tipping, is the illegal deposit of any waste on to land that does not have a license to accept it.

Land types are categorised as: highway, council land, footpath/bridleway, back alleyway, private/residential, commercial/industrial, watercourse, railway, or agricultural.

Waste type can be categorised as: household, commercial, electrical (including white goods), construction/demolition/excavation, animal carcasses, green, vehicle parts, tyres, chemical, or clinical.

The size of the deposit is categorised by load, e.g., a single item or black bag, up to a tipper lorry load or larger.

The bar chart in Figure E‑16 shows the number of fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population, by land type and Local Authority Rural-Urban Classification, in 2022/23.

For all of the selected land types (except for agricultural incidents), there were fewer fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas in 2022/23. There were 9 agricultural fly-tipping incidents per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, compared to 5 incidents per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

The most commonly reported land type was fly-tipping onto a highway, for which there were 372 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, compared to 961 incidents per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

The second most commonly reported land type was fly-tipping onto council land, for which there were 111 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas; this compares to 414 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban Authorities.

The least commonly reported land type was fly-tipping onto a railway, for which there were less than 1 incident per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, and 3 incidents per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas. Of the land types specified on the chart, the least commonly reported land type was private/residential incidents; here, there were 12 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, compared to 30 incidents per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

Figure E‑16: Bar chart showing the number of fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population, by selected land types and Local Authority Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2023 (Note E-4, Note E-9)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered bars.

“Railway incidents”, “Commercial/Industrial incidents”, “Watercourse Incidents”, and “Agricultural Incidents” have been excluded from the chart as there were fewer than 10 incidents recorded per 100,000 population.

The bar chart in Figure E‑17 shows the number of fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population, by waste type and Local Authority Rural-Urban Classification, in 2022/23.

For all of the selected waste types (except tyres incidents and asbestos incidents), there were fewer fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas in 2022/23. There were 17 more tyres incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas. There were 4 more asbestos incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban Authorities.

The most commonly reported waste type was household black bags; there were 95 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, and 390 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

The least commonly reported waste type was clinical incidents; there was 1 incident reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, compared to 3 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas. Of the waste types specified on the chart, the least commonly reported waste type was commercial black bags; there were 12 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, and 110 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

Figure E‑17: Bar chart showing the number of fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population, by selected waste types and Local Authority Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2023 (Note E-4, Note E-9)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered bars.

“Clinical Incidents”, “Animal Carcass incidents”, “Asbestos Incidents”, and “Chemical Drums, Oil, Fuel Incidents” have been excluded from the chart as there were fewer than 10 incidents recorded per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas.

The bar chart in Figure E‑18 shows the number of fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population, by size of waste deposit and Local Authority Rural-Urban Classification, in 2022/23.

For all selected waste sizes, there were fewer fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas in 2022/23.

The most commonly reported waste size was small van load incidents; there were 251 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas compared to 698 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

The second most commonly reported waste size was a car boot or less; there were 165 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, and 646 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

The least commonly reported waste size was significant or multi-load incidents; there were 6 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, and 32 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas.

Figure E‑18: Bar chart showing the number of fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population, by size of waste deposit and Local Authority Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2023 (Note E-4, Note E-9)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered bars.

The line chart in Figure E‑19 shows the total number of fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population between 2019/20 and 2022/23. There have been consistently proportionally fewer incidents reported in Predominantly Rural areas than in Predominantly Urban areas.

In 2019/20, there were 643 fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas, compared to 2,233 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas; this means there were 1,591 fewer incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas than Predominantly Urban areas.

The number of fly-tipping incidents reported increased in both settlement types in 2020/21; in Predominantly Rural areas, there were 876 incidents reported per 100,000 population, compared to 2,513 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas. This was the highest level of fly-tipping incidents reported across the period.

Between 2020/21 and 2021/22, the number of fly-tipping incidents decreased such that there were 733 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas (and 2,412 incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Urban areas).

In 2022/23, there were 1,756 fewer incidents reported per 100,000 population in Predominantly Rural areas (686 incidents per 100,000 population) than in Predominantly Urban areas (2,441 incidents per 100,000 population).

Figure E‑19: Line chart showing the total number of fly-tipping incidents reported per 100,000 population, by broad Local Authority Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2020 to year ending March 2023 (Note E-4, Note E-9)

Notes:

Data included within this section refers to financial years rather than calendar years (e.g., 2022/23 refers to the period from April 2022 to March 2023).

Scales differ for some figures, and therefore caution is advised when making comparisons between crime rates.

Crime - explanatory notes

Note E-1

The way crimes are recorded by the police and the likelihood of victims reporting crimes may change over time. Figures on recorded crime may not be a reliable measure of year-on-year trends.

Note E-2

Caution must be taken when interpreting small numbers of offences.

Following the implementation of a new IT system in November 2022, Devon and Cornwall Police have been unable to supply data for the quarters spanning October 2022 to March 2023. They are therefore not included in Rural totals.

The number of offences for Greater Manchester Police Community Safety Partnership area are slightly higher than expected due to some offences being incorrectly allocated to two CSPs; as a result, there may be some revisions to the source data in future once this has been rectified.

Note E-3

Unlike the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), recorded crime figures do not include crimes that have not been reported to the police or incidents that the police decide not to record. It was estimated in the year ending March 2020 CSEW that around 42% of CSEW comparable crimes were reported by the public to the police, although this proportion varied considerably for individual offence types. For more information see: Crime in England and Wales QMI - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk).

Note E-4

Rates per population are created using mid-year population estimates calculated by the Office for National Statistics. Rural and Urban totals do not include data for the British Transport Police as no location/classification can be assigned.

Note E-5

Sources:

1 - Crime in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

2 - Crime outcomes in England and Wales 2023 to 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

3 - Seizures of drugs in England and Wales, financial year ending 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

4 - Hate crime, England and Wales, 2021 to 2022 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

5 - Fly-tipping statistics for England, 2022 to 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Note E-6

A Police Force Area Rural-Urban Classification has been created to determine whether a police force operates over Predominantly Rural or Predominantly Urban areas; due to the large size of Police Force Area, it would not be feasible to attempt to describe rurality in more detail. Please contact rural.statistics@defra.gov.uk for more information.

Note E-7

Data on firearm-enabled crime does not include figures for Devon and Cornwall; following the implementation of a new IT system in November 2022, Devon and Cornwall Police have been unable to supply data. Therefore, Predominantly Rural and England totals represent those classifications minus the Devon and Cornwall area. For more information, please visit Crime in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk).

Note E-8

Data on knife-enabled crime does not include figures for Greater Manchester due to IT issues with supplying offence data. Therefore, Predominantly Urban totals and England totals represent those classifications minus the Greater Manchester area. For more information, please visit Police recorded offences involving knives or sharp instruments: methodology changes - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) or Crime in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk).

Note E-9

Data on fly-tipping incidents are derived from a variety of sources. Fly-tipping returns for some Local Authorities may be missing, incomplete or found to contain errors during Defra's quality assurance process. In these cases, some or all of the totals may be unavailable for those Local Authorities. For more information, please visit Fly-tipping statistics for England, 2022 to 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

Crime Surveys: Local Police and Businesses

In Rural areas, residents have more confidence in the police than Urban residents, and victim rates are typically lower for all crimes except for computer misuse.

Key findings – Crime Surveys: Local Police and Businesses

The rate of headline crime is slightly lower in Rural areas

Headline crime includes theft, robbery, criminal damage, violence with or without injury, and optionally, fraud and computer misuse.

In 2023/24, when including fraud and computer misuse, 15% of people in Rural areas reported being victims of headline crimes at least once during the year, compared with 16% in Urban areas.

When excluding fraud and computer misuse as headline crimes, 8% of people in Rural areas reported being victims of headline crimes at least once during the year compared with 11% in Urban areas.

Rural areas are more positive about their local police than Urban areas

In the year ending March 2024, 82% of respondents in Rural areas felt that the police would treat them with respect (compared with 79% in Urban areas).

In the year ending March 2024, 72% of respondents in Rural areas felt that the police in their area could be trusted (compared with 68% in Urban areas).

However, respondents in Rural areas were less favourable when asked about police reliability (47% in Rural areas felt the police could be relied on when needed compared with 51% in Uban areas).

Rural businesses experienced higher levels of crime for certain crime types

During 2023 the most commonly reported offence by businesses was computer misuse (14% of premises with computers in Rural areas and 8% in Urban areas).

Summary

Information from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), that deals with perceptions of crime, and the Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) have been grouped into a single section. The CSEW monitors the experience of crime in England and Wales whether or not it has been reported to the police, whilst the CVS monitors crime against businesses.

For both Rural and Urban areas, 16- to 24-year-olds were the least likely to experience headline crime (this includes theft, robbery, criminal damage, violence with or without injury, and optionally, fraud and computer misuse), based on survey responses in year ending March 2024; 25- to 44-year-olds were the most likely. Respondents in Rural areas generally had more positive responses to statements regarding the local police compared to those in Urban areas. People in Rural areas had a higher level of confidence in their local police compared to those in Urban areas (68% and 65%, respectively). Just 3% of respondents in Rural areas felt that the police were sufficiently visible through foot patrols, compared to 14% in Urban areas.

For all offence groups except theft, assault or threat, and robbery, a higher proportion of business premises in Rural areas reported experiencing crime during 2023. The most commonly reported offence was computer misuse (14% of premises with computers in Rural areas; 8% in Urban areas).

Crime Survey for England and Wales

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) monitors the experience of crime whether or not it has been reported to the police; data on police recorded crime is presented in Section D. The CSEW is used to evaluate and develop crime reduction policies and provides vital information about the changing levels of crime. The results presented in this section are based on the perceptions of survey respondents from financial years 2022/23 and 2023/24.

Victims of headline crime

The CSEW provides estimates of headline crime; this includes theft, robbery, criminal damage, violence with or without injury, and optionally, fraud and computer misuse. The bar chart in Figure F‑1 shows the proportion of respondents who were victims of headline crime in 2023/24.

Fraud and computer misuse are responsible for a large proportion of crime. When including fraud and computer misuse as headline crimes, 15% of people in Rural areas reported being victims of headline crimes at least once in the year ending March 2024; this is 1 percentage point lower than in Urban areas (16%). When excluding fraud and computer misuse as headline crimes, 8% of people in Rural areas reported being victims of headline crimes at least once in year ending March 2024; this is 3 percentage points lower than in Urban areas (11%).

Including fraud and computer misuse within the headline crimes increases the proportion of victims by 7 percentage points in Rural areas, and by 6 percentage points in Urban areas. This indicates that proportionally more people are victims of fraud and computer misuse in Rural areas than Urban areas, as of year ending March 2024.

Figure F‑1: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who were victims of headline crime, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2024 (Note F-2)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

Data from the CSEW can often be broken down by age of respondent. The bar chart in Figure F‑2 shows the proportion of people who had been victims of any headline crime (including fraud and computer misuse) in Quarter 2 (Q2; April to June) 2024, by age band.

For all age bands, proportionally fewer experience crime in Rural areas than Urban areas. People aged 25 to 44, and 45 to 64, are most likely to experience crime; The victim rate was lowest for 16- to 24-year-olds, followed by the victim rates for 25- to 44-year-olds and 45- to 64-year-olds being around twice as high. For people aged 65 and above, the victim rate was lower than that of 25- to 64-year-olds.

The findings for each age band are as follows:

Similar proportions of 16- to 24-year-olds in Rural and Urban areas experienced headline crime in Q2 2024 (17% and 18%, respectively). These were the lowest proportions seen across age bands. However, this age band also had the lowest number of responses (with only 185 in Rural areas and 1,566 in Urban areas), and so the estimates are less reliable than for other age bands.

The proportion of 25- to 44-year-olds who had been victims of headline crime in Rural areas was 3 percentage points lower than in Urban areas (35% and 38%, respectively). The proportions of 45- to 64-year-olds who experienced headline crime were similar, at 35% in Rural areas and 36% in Urban areas.

Similar proportions of people aged 65 and over in Rural and Urban areas were victims of headline crime (23% and 24%, respectively).

Figure F‑2: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who were victims of headline crime (including fraud and computer misuse) at least once, by age band and Rural-Urban Classification, England, Quarter 2 2024 (Note F-2)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

The line chart in Figure F‑3 shows the proportion of people who had been victims of any headline crime (including fraud and computer misuse) between Quarter 3 (Q3; July to September) 2022 and Quarter 2 (Q2; April to June) 2024.

There were lower victim rates for headline crime in Rural areas than in Urban areas. Headline crime victim rates remained at around 15% in Rural areas across the period (varying from 14.7% to 15.4%). In Urban areas, they decreased from 17% to 16%, and then returned to 17% (fluctuating from 17.3% to 15.8%). Whilst Urban headline crime victim rates decreased slightly to a lower rate of around 16% in Q2 2023 to Q4 2023, in Rural areas, it instead increased marginally during the same period.

Figure F‑3: Line chart showing the proportion of respondents who were victims of headline crime (including fraud and computer misuse) at least once, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, Quarter 3 2022 to Quarter 2 2024 (Note F-2)

Periods have been presented in short-hand; “Q3 2022” refers to Quarter 3 2022.

Headline crime can be broken down into two high-level crime types: personal crime (violence, robbery, theft from the person, other theft of personal property, and fraud and computer misuse) and household crime (domestic burglary, other household theft, vehicle-related theft, bicycle theft, and criminal damage). The bar chart in Figure F‑4 shows the proportion of people who reported being victims of these specified crime types in the 2023/24 survey. It can be described as follows:

In both Rural and Urban areas, 10% of respondents reported to have been victims of personal crime in year ending March 2024.

In Rural areas, 6% of respondents reported to have been victims of household crime in year ending March 2024; this is 2 percentage points lower than in Urban areas.

Figure F‑4: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who were victims of personal or household crime at least once, by Rural-Urban Classification, in England, year ending March 2024 (Note F-2)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

Personal crime can be broken down into specific crimes. Examples of these crimes are presented in the bar charts in Figure F‑5. Further examples are presented in the Communities and Households supplementary data tables.

In Rural areas, the proportion of people who were victims of fraud and/or computer misuse was higher than those who were victims of theft, for all ages.

Figure F‑5: Bar charts showing the proportion of respondents who were victims of fraud and/or computer misuse (left-hand chart), or theft (right-hand chart) at least once, by age band and Rural-Urban Classification, England, Quarter 2 2024 (Note F-2)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

The left-hand bar chart in Figure F‑5 shows the proportion of respondents who had been victims of fraud and/or computer misuse at least once in Quarter 2 2024, by age band. For every age band, proportionally more respondents were victims of these crimes in Rural areas compared to Urban areas; this aligns with the findings from Figure F‑1. However, for some age bands, the difference was minimal.

Similar proportions of 16- to 24-year-olds reported being victims of fraud and/or computer misuse in Rural (7%) and Urban (6%) areas in Q2 2024.

The proportion of 25- to 44-year-olds who had been victims of fraud and/or computer misuse was 6 percentage points higher in Rural areas than in Urban areas (20% and 15%, respectively).

The proportion of 45- to 64-year-olds who had been victims of these crimes was 5 percentage points higher in Rural areas compared to Urban areas (21% and 17%, respectively).

The proportion of people aged 65 and over who had been victims of fraud and/or computer misuse was 2 percentage points higher in Rural areas (15%) compared to Urban areas (13%).

The right-hand bar chart in Figure F‑5 shows the proportion of respondents who had been victims of theft at least once in Quarter 2 2024, by age band. For every age band, proportionally fewer respondents were victims of these crimes in Rural areas compared to Urban areas.

The proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds who had been victims of theft was 3 percentage points lower in Rural areas (6%) compared to Urban areas (9%).

The proportion of 25- to 44-year-olds who had been victims of these crimes was 9 percentage points lower in Rural areas (11%) than in Urban areas (20%).

The proportion of 45- to 64-year-olds who had been victims of theft was 5 percentage points lower in Rural areas (11%) than in Urban areas (16%).

The proportion of people aged 65 and over who had been victims of theft was 2 percentage points lower in Rural areas (7%) than in Urban areas (9%).

The line charts in Figure F‑6 show the proportion of people who had been victims of the example crimes between Quarter 3 (July to September) 2022 and Quarter 2 (April to June) 2024.

Figure F‑6: Line charts showing the proportion of respondents who were victims of fraud and/or computer misuse (left-hand chart), or theft (right-hand chart) at least once, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, Quarter 3 2022 to Quarter 2 2024 (Note F-2)

Periods have been presented in short-hand; “Q3 22” refers to Quarter 3 2022.

In the left-hand chart of Figure F‑6, there were consistently higher victim rates for fraud and/or computer misuse in Rural areas than in Urban areas. Victim rates here typically fluctuated between 8% and 9% in Rural areas, and around 7% in Urban areas. The highest victim rate in both Rural and Urban areas was in Q2 2024 (9.2% and 7.4%, respectively).

In the right-hand chart of Figure F‑6, there were lower victim rates for theft in Rural areas than in Urban areas. Victim rates here fluctuated around 5% in Rural areas, and around 8% in Urban areas. The highest victim rate in Rural areas was in Q3 2023 (5.5%), whereas in Urban areas, it was in Q3 2022 (8.3%).

Further time series of specific crimes (for both personal and household crimes) are presented in the Communities and Households supplementary data tables.

Victims of specific crimes

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides estimates of headline crime; this includes theft, robbery, criminal damage, violence with or without injury, and optionally, fraud and computer misuse.

Amongst these categories, data exists on domestic violence. The line chart in Figure F‑7 shows the proportion of respondents who were victims of domestic violence at least once in each quarter, between Quarter 3 (Q3; July to September) 2022 and Quarter 2 (Q2; April to June) 2024. Overall, the average victim rate for each quarter between Q3 2022 and Q4 2024 was marginally lower in Rural areas (0.14%) compared to Urban areas (0.15%).

Fewer than 0.2% of respondents reported being victims of domestic violence in each quarter in both Rural and Urban areas. In Rural areas, the proportion of respondents who reported being victims of domestic violence typically ranged from 0.14% to 0.16% between Q3 2022 and Q2 2024. The exceptions to this were in Q4 2022 (where the reported rate of domestic violence was 0.09%, meaning it was lower than in Urban areas) and Q4 2023 (where the reported rate was 0.11%). Similarly, in Urban areas, the proportion of respondents who reported being victims of domestic violence typically ranged from 0.14% to 0.16% between Q3 2022 and Q2 2024; the exceptions to this were in Q3 2023 (where the reported rate of domestic violence was 0.12%, meaning it was lower than in Rural areas) and post-Q4 2023 (as the reported rate increased to 0.17% in Q1 2024 and 0.18% in Q2 2024).

Figure F‑7: Line chart showing the proportion of respondents who were victims of domestic violence at least once, by Rural-Urban Classification, in England, Quarter 3 2022 to Quarter 2 2024 (Note F-2)

Periods have been presented in short-hand; “Q3 2022” refers to Quarter 3 2022.

The bar chart in Figure F‑8 shows the proportion of respondents who experienced anti-social behaviour (ASB) in their local area in 2022/23 and 2023/24. During both survey periods, the proportion of people who experienced ASB was lower in Rural areas than in Urban areas.

In Rural areas, 27% of respondents reported experiencing anti-social behaviour in year ending March 2024. This is 10 percentage points lower than in Urban areas (37%). In both Rural and Urban areas, the proportion of respondents who reported experiencing ASB increased by 1 percentage point between 2022/23 and 2023/24.

Figure F‑8: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who experienced anti-social behaviour (ASB) in their local area, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2023 and year ending March 2024 (Note F-2)

Crime perceptions

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) monitors the experience of crime in England and Wales whether or not it has been reported to the police. The results presented in this section are based on the perceptions of crime from survey respondents.

The bar chart in Figure F‑9 shows the proportion of respondents who strongly agreed/tended to agree with specified statements regarding the local police in year ending March 2024. For most statements, people in Rural areas provided a more positive response than those in Urban areas. Data for year ending March 2023 can be found in the Communities and Households supplementary data tables.

Figure F‑9 can be described as follows:

When asked whether police would treat them with respect, 82% of respondents in Rural areas agreed; this was slightly higher than in Urban areas (79%).

When asked whether police in their area could be trusted, 72% of respondents in Rural areas agreed; this is higher than in Urban areas (68%).

When asked whether police would treat them fairly, 59% of respondents in Rural areas agreed; this was slightly higher than in Urban areas (57%).

When asked whether police would understand local concerns, 58% of respondents in Rural areas agreed; this is slightly higher than in Urban areas (56%).

When asked whether police can be relied on when needed, 47% of respondents in Rural areas agreed; this was slightly lower than in Urban areas (51%).

When asked whether police would deal with local concerns, 44% of respondents in Rural areas agreed; this is similar to Urban areas (45%).

Figure F‑9: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who agreed with specified statements regarding the local police and their treatment, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2024

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

Respondents are also asked to rate their overall confidence in the local police; this is shown in the bar chart in Figure F‑10.

In Rural areas, 68% of respondents said they had confidence in their local police in year ending March 2024; this is 3 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (65%).

Data for year ending March 2023 can be found in the Communities and Households supplementary data tables.

Figure F‑10: Bar chart showing respondents’ overall confidence in the local police, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2024

Respondents were asked to rate their local police; this is shown in the bar chart in Figure F‑11 for years 2022/23 and 2023/24. Similar proportions of respondents in Rural and Urban areas said that their local police did a good or excellent job in year ending March 2024 (49%). Compared to the previous survey, these proportions decreased – by 5 percentage points in Rural areas (from 54% in year ending March 2023) and 2 percentage points in Urban areas (from 51%).

Figure F‑11: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who said that their local police do a good/excellent job, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2023 and year ending March 2024

Respondents who had reported an incident were asked whether they were satisfied with the police; this is shown in the bar chart in Figure F‑12 for years 2022/23 and 2023/24.

52% of respondents in Rural areas who reported an incident said they were satisfied with the response from the police in year ending March 2024. This is 12 percentage points lower than in year ending March 2023. In Urban areas, 56% of respondents who reported an incident said they were satisfied with the police in both year ending March 2024 and year ending March 2023.

Figure F‑12: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who were satisfied with the police after reporting an incident, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2023 and year ending March 2024 (Note F-5)

As part of the CSEW, people are asked whether they agree or disagree that police and local council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour (ASB) and crime issues that matter in the local area. The bar chart in Figure F‑13 shows the proportion of each response.

Similar proportions of respondents in Rural (46%) and Urban (47%) areas agreed that police and local councils were dealing with ASB and crime issues that mattered in the local area. Proportionally fewer respondents in Rural areas disagreed than in Urban areas (19% and 22%, respectively). A higher proportion of respondents in Rural areas did not offer an opinion on the matter compared to Urban areas (35% and 31%, respectively).

Figure F‑13: Bar chart showing the proportion of responses regarding how police and local councils are dealing with anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in the local area, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2024

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

Data for year ending March 2023 can be found in the Communities and Households supplementary data tables.

Respondents were asked for their opinion on the visibility of police foot patrols. The proportion of respondents who reported high visibility of police is presented in the bar chart in Figure F‑14 for years 2022/23 and 2023/24. In both Rural and Urban areas, the proportion of respondents reporting high police visibility was less than 20% in 2022/23 and 2023/24.

Figure F‑14: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who reported high police visibility, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2023 and year ending March 2024 (Note F-6)

Proportionally fewer respondents reported high police visibility in Rural areas compared to Urban areas; however, Rural police forces typically cover larger geographical areas, and so people are less likely to see a police officer or Police Community Support Officer.

In year ending March 2024, 3% of respondents in Rural areas reported high visibility of police foot patrols, compared to 14% in Urban areas. In both Rural and Urban areas, the proportion of respondents reporting high police visibility was 2 percentage points lower in year ending March 2024 than in year ending March 2023 (where rates were 6% and 16%, respectively).

Respondents were asked how safe they felt when walking alone after dark. The bar chart in Figure F‑15 presents the proportion of respondents who said they felt very safe or fairly safe in years 2022/23 and 2023/24. Proportionally more respondents reported feeling safe after dark in Rural areas compared to Urban areas.

Figure F‑15: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who felt very or fairly safe when walking alone after dark, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2023 and year ending March 2024 (Note F-7)

In year ending March 2024, 85% of respondents reported feeling very or fairly safe when walking alone after dark in Rural areas; this was 2 percentage points lower than in year ending March 2023 (87%). In Urban areas, 78% of respondents reported feeling safe when walking alone after dark; this was 1 percentage point higher than in year ending March 2023 (77%).

Respondents were asked how worried they felt about selected crimes. The bar chart in Figure F‑16 presents the proportion of respondents who reported a high level of worry about burglary, car crime, fraud, and violent crime. For burglary, car crime, and violent crime in year ending March 2024, the proportion of respondents who reported being worried in Rural areas was just over half of that in Urban areas. However, in both Rural and Urban areas, fewer than 10% of respondents reported having high levels of worry about these crimes.

5% of respondents reported having a high level of worry about burglary in Rural areas, compared to 8% in Urban areas. 4% of respondents reported having a high level of worry about car crime in Rural areas, compared to 7% in Urban areas. 4% of respondents reported having a high level of worry about violent crime in Rural areas, compared to 8% in Urban areas. Fraud had the highest level of worry; in both Rural and Urban areas, 16% of respondents reported having a high level of worry about fraud in year ending March 2024.

Figure F‑16: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents with a high level of worry about burglary, car crime, fraud, and/or violent crime, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, year ending March 2024 (Note F-8)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

Commercial Victimisation Survey

The Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) has been commissioned by the Home Office annually since 2012 to record the nature and extent of crime committed against business premises. Some of the content previously published within this section has been removed as it is no longer presented within the CVS (e.g. data by sector). Data on crimes against businesses premises from within this section can be found in the Communities and Households supplementary data tables.

The categories of offences can be grouped further as follows: all burglary (including attempted burglary and burglary with entry), vandalism, all vehicle related theft (including theft of a vehicle and theft from a vehicle), all robbery (including attempts), assault or threat, all theft (including theft by a customer, by an employee, by others, or by unknown persons), all fraud (by an employee/others/unknown persons), and all computer misuse (including hacking, computer viruses, or fraudulent emails – only for respondents who owned a computer). The bar chart in Figure F‑17 shows the proportion of premises that experienced crime in 2023.

For all offence groups except theft, assault or threat, and robbery, a higher proportion of business premises in Rural areas had experienced crime during 2023 compared with Urban areas. 14% of Rural business premises with a computer experienced computer misuse – the highest of all offence groups; this compares with 8% of businesses in Urban areas. The crime with the lowest rate was robbery (including attempts); 1% of Rural businesses said they had experienced this crime in 2023, compared to 3% of businesses in Urban areas. Of all the differences presented between Rural and Urban areas, only those for robbery and computer misuse were statistically significant.

Figure F‑17: Bar chart showing the proportion of business premises that experienced crime in the last year, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, 2023 (Note F-9)

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clustered bars. Computer misuse is presented separately to other crimes at it only applies to premises that owned a computer.

Crime Surveys - explanatory notes

Note F-1

Sources:

1 - Crime in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

2 - Crime against businesses: findings from the 2023 Commercial Victimisation Survey - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Note F-2

In Figure F‑1 to Figure F‑8, the measure presented is the estimated percentage of adults who had been a victim of at least one personal crime or had been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime, dependent on the specific crime stated.

Note F-3

For information regarding statistical significance, definitions, and any other information related to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, please see: User guide to crime statistics for England and Wales: March 2024 - Office for National Statistics

Note F-4

Responses reported are from people aged 16 and over.

Note F-5

In Figure F‑12, satisfaction with the police represents the percentage of incidents in which the victim was “very” or “fairly” satisfied with the police.

Note F-6

In Figure F‑14, the question on visibility of foot patrols was only asked of a quarter of the CSEW sample. The visibility of police on foot patrols was classified as high if the respondent said they saw police officers of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) on foot patrol in their local area once a day, more than once a day, or about once a week.

Note F-7

In Figure F‑15, the question relating to feeling safe walking alone after dark was only asked of one quarter of the CSEW sample.

Note F-8

In Figure F‑16, unweighted bases refer to worry about burglary; bases for fraud and violent crime will be similar, but for car crime will be slightly lower as these are based only on those residing in households owning (or with regular use of) a vehicle.

Note F-9

In Figure F‑17, the question relating to computer misuse offences was asked to premises which had a computer. Due to the different base from the rest of the questions, it has been presented separately in the bar chart.

Note F-10

Tables showing the data relating to this section are available in the Communities and Households supplementary data tables.

Feelings about the local neighbourhood

Proportionally more people in Rural areas are satisfied with, and have a stronger attachment to, their neighbourhood than people in Urban areas.

Key findings – Feelings about the local neighbourhood

The vast majority of Rural residents are satisfied with their local area

85% of Rural residents reported being satisfied with their local area as a place to live; in Urban areas, 71% reported being satisfied.

In Rural areas, 87% of residents reported feeling satisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area; in Urban areas, 73% reported being satisfied.

In Rural areas, 69% of residents reported feeling that they “belong” strongly or fairly strongly to their immediate neighbourhood; this proportion is 10 percentage points higher than in Urban areas.

There is a greater sense of community in Rural areas than in urban areas

In the 2023-24 survey period, 78% of people in Rural areas said they chat to their neighbours (more than just to say hello) at least once a month. This value was 10 percentage points higher than in Urban areas.

Trust helps to build a community and 57% of people living in Rural areas felt that many people in their neighbourhood could be trusted; in Urban areas, it was 37%.

Summary

This section uses data from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Community Life Survey to consider how people feel about their neighbours and their neighbourhood.

People living in Rural areas tend to report more favourable feelings about their local neighbourhood than those living in Urban areas. In the 2023-24 survey, proportionally more people in Rural areas felt that they belonged to their immediate neighbourhood compared to Urban areas (69% and 59%, respectively). Proportionally more people in Rural areas felt satisfied with their local area compared to those in Urban areas (85% and 71%, respectively); there was a marginal difference in the proportion of people in Rural areas (10%) than Urban areas (12%) who felt that their local area was a better place to live compared to two years prior. Proportionally more people in Rural areas than Urban areas agreed with the positive statements regarding their local neighbourhood, including attractiveness of the local area, satisfaction of green and natural spaces, and recommendation as a good place to live.

People living in Rural areas are more likely to have meaningful conversations with their neighbours than those in Urban areas; in the 2023-24 survey, 78% of people in Rural areas reported that they chat to their neighbours at least once a month (more than just to say hello), compared with 68% of people living in Urban areas. Proportionally more people in Rural areas than Urban areas agreed with positive statements regarding their neighbours, including thinking their neighbours could be trusted, the local area being a place where people from different backgrounds could get on well together, and pulling together to improve the neighbourhood.

25% of Rural respondents agreed that they personally could influence decisions, compared to 23% in Urban areas. 52% of Rural respondents thought their ability to influence was important, compared to 49% in Urban areas. Proportionally fewer people living in Rural areas tend to want more involvement in decision-making in their local area compared to those in Urban areas (25% and 28%, respectively; 2023-24).

People living in Rural areas tend to report higher levels of participation in civic and social action than those living in Urban areas. 18% of people in Rural areas said they had been involved in social action in the previous 12 months, compared to 12% in Urban areas. 35% of Rural respondents had engaged in civic participation in the previous 12 months, compared to 33% in Urban areas. 22% of Rural respondents had taken part in civic consultations in the previous 12 months, compared to 18% in Urban areas. 10% of Rural respondents reported to have been involved in civic activism in the previous 12 months, compared to 7% in Urban areas.

The neighbourhood

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) produces an annual publication relating to the Community Life Survey; data collected in this survey includes how people feel about their local neighbourhood (Note G-3). The 2021-22 survey relates to the period spanning October 2021 to September 2022, whilst the 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024.

People living in Rural areas tend to report more favourable feelings about their local neighbourhood than those living in Urban areas. The bar charts in Figure G‑1 highlight respondents’ feelings about their local neighbourhood in the 2021-22 and 2023-24 surveys.

The left-hand bar chart in Figure G‑1 shows the proportion of respondents to the survey who felt they belonged very/fairly strongly to their immediate neighbourhood. The latest findings (from October 2023 to March 2024, hereafter referred to as “2023-24”) show that 69% of Rural respondents said they felt that they belonged to their immediate neighbourhood. This is higher than in Urban areas (59%). The previous survey (October 2021 to September 2022, or “2021-22”) showed higher proportions in Rural areas (72%), suggesting a marginal drop in proportion of people in Rural areas who felt they belonged to their immediate neighbourhood in 2023-24 compared to 2021-22.

The middle bar chart in Figure G‑1 shows the proportion of respondents who were satisfied with their local area as a place to live. In 2023-24, 85% of Rural respondents were satisfied with their local area as a place to live; this was 14 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (71%). Compared to the 2021-22 survey, there was no significant change in the proportion of respondents in Rural areas who were satisfied, but in Urban areas, the proportion decreased by 3 percentage points (Note G-4). This suggests that proportionally fewer people in Urban areas felt satisfied with their local area as a place to live in 2023-24 compared to 2021-22, whereas the satisfaction in Rural areas remained the same.

The right-hand bar chart in Figure G‑1 shows the proportion of respondents who thought that their local area had “got better to live in” over the previous two years. In 2023-24, just 10% of Rural respondents felt that their local area was a better place to live compared to two years prior. This compares to just 12% of respondents in Urban areas. In 2021-22, the agreement rate was higher in both Rural (13%) and Urban (16%) areas. This suggests that proportionally fewer people felt their local area had improved in the two years prior to the 2023-24 survey, compared to the 2021-22 survey.

Figure G‑1: Bar charts showing the proportion of respondents who felt they belonged very/fairly strongly to their immediate neighbourhood (left-hand chart), who were satisfied with their local area as a place to live (middle chart), or who thought their local area had got better to live in over the past two years (right-hand chart), by Rural-Urban Classification, England, during survey periods 2021-22 and 2023-24

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

The 2021-22 survey relates to the period spanning October 2021 to September 2022. The 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024.

Table G‑1 shows the proportion of people who agree with specified statements relating to their local area during the 2023-24 survey period.

Table G‑1: Proportion of respondents who agree with specified statements regarding their local neighbourhood, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, during survey period 2023-24

The 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024.

Proportion (%) of respondents who…	Rural	Urban
think their local area is attractive	79	53
feel satisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area	87	73
agree that they feel proud to live in their local area	76	56
would recommend their local area to others as a good place to live	80	63
would still like to be living in their local area in five years’ time	73	58

Generally, people in Rural areas were more positive about their local area compared to those in Urban areas when evaluating responses to the 2023-24 survey:

More than 3 in every 4 respondents in Rural areas regarded their local area as attractive (79%); this is 27 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (53%).

In response to the question “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the green and natural spaces in your local area”, almost 9 in every 10 respondents in Rural areas said they were satisfied (87%). This was 14 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (73%).

3 in every 4 respondents in Rural areas (76%) said they agreed with the statement “I am proud to live in my local area”; this is 20 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (56%).

8 in every 10 respondents in Rural areas (80%) said they agreed with the statement “I would recommend my local area to others as a good place to live”; this is 17 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (63%).

Almost 3 in every 4 respondents in Rural areas (73%) said they agreed with the statement “In five years’ time I would like to still be living in my local area”; this is 15 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (58%).

Neighbours

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) produces an annual publication relating to the Community Life Survey; data collected in this survey includes how people feel about their neighbours (Note G-3). The 2021-22 survey relates to the period spanning October 2021 to September 2022, whilst the 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024.

People living in Rural areas tend to report more favourable feelings about their neighbours than those living in Urban areas. The bar chart in Figure G‑2 highlights the proportion of respondents who said they chat to their neighbours frequently in the 2021-22 and 2023-24 surveys.

Figure G‑2: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who chat to their neighbours (more than just to say hello) at least once a month, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, during survey periods 2021-22 and 2023-24

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

The 2021-22 survey relates to the period spanning October 2021 to September 2022. The 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024.

Across both survey periods shown, proportionally more Rural respondents said they chat to their neighbours regularly compared to those in Urban areas. However, across all areas, the proportion of respondents chatting to neighbours has decreased between 2021-22 and 2023-24.

In the 2023-24 survey period, 78% of people in Rural areas said they chat to their neighbours (more than just to say hello) at least once a month. This was 3 percentage points lower than the previous survey (81%, 2021-22). In Urban areas, 68% of people said they chat to their neighbours at least once a month in the 2023-24 survey. This was 2 percentage points lower than the previous survey (70%, 2021-22).

Table G‑2 shows the proportion of respondents who agree with specified statements relating to their neighbours during the 2023-24 survey period. It can be described as follows:

57% of Rural respondents to the 2023-24 survey felt that many of the people in their local neighbourhood could be trusted; this was 20 percentage points higher than in Urban areas. This metric had the lowest rate of agreement of all neighbour-related statements.

86% of Rural respondents agreed that their local area was a place where people from different backgrounds could get on well together; this was 6 percentage points higher than in Urban areas.

72% of Rural respondents agreed that people who live in their area would pull together to improve the neighbourhood; this was 20 percentage points higher than in Urban areas.

Further analysis of the 2021-22 survey period can be found in the Communities and Households supplementary data tables.

Table G‑2: Proportion of respondents who agree with specified statements regarding their neighbours, by Rural-Urban Classification, in England, during survey period 2023-24

The 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024.

Proportion (%) of respondents who…	Rural	Urban
think many of the people in their neighbourhood can be trusted	57	37
agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds can get on well together	86	80
agree that people who live in the area pull together to improve the neighbourhood	72	52

Decision-making in the local area

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) produces an annual publication relating to the Community Life Survey; data collected in this survey includes how people feel able to influence decisions affecting their local area (Note G-3). The 2021-22 survey relates to the period spanning October 2021 to September 2022, whilst the 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024; despite covering a shorter period, there were far more respondents to the 2023-24 survey.

The left-hand bar chart in Figure G‑3 shows the proportion of respondents who agreed that they personally could influence decisions affecting their local area. In the 2023-24 survey, 25% of Rural respondents agreed that they personally could influence decisions; this was 3 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (23%). Compared to the 2021-22 survey, there was no significant change in the proportion of respondents who said they could influence decisions in Rural areas, but in Urban areas, the proportion decreased by 4 percentage points (Note G-4).

The middle bar chart in Figure G‑3 shows the proportion of respondents who wanted to be more involved in the decisions made by their council that affect their local area. Based on survey responses, proportionally fewer people wanted to be more involved in decision-making in Rural areas compared to Urban areas. In the 2023-24 survey period, 25% of Rural respondents agreed that they wanted to be more involved; this was 3 percentage points lower than in Urban areas (28%). There was no significant change in the proportion of respondents who said they wanted to be more involved in decisions made by their council between the 2021-22 and 2023-24 surveys (Note G-4).

The right-hand bar chart in Figure G‑3 shows the proportion of respondents who thought it was important for them personally to feel they could influence decisions in their local area. 52% of Rural respondents thought their ability to influence was important in the 2023-24 survey; this was 3 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (49%). Compared to the 2021-22 survey, there was no significant change in the proportion of Rural respondents who felt it was important for them to feel able to influence decisions that affect their local area (Note G-4). However, in Urban areas, the proportion decreased by 4 percentage points.

Figure G‑3: Bar charts showing the proportion of respondents who said they personally could influence decisions affecting their local area (left-hand chart), who wanted to be more involved in the decisions made by their council that affect their local area (middle chart), or who thought the ability to influence decisions that affect their local area was important (right-hand chart), by Rural-Urban Classification, in England, during survey periods 2021-22 and 2023-24

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

The 2021-22 survey relates to the period spanning October 2021 to September 2022. The 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024.

Social and civic action

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) produces an annual publication relating to the Community Life Survey; data collected in this survey includes how people participate in activities which improve their local area and/or community (Note G-3). The 2021-22 survey relates to the period spanning October 2021 to September 2022, whilst the 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024; despite covering a shorter period, there were far more respondents to the 2023-24 survey.

The bar chart in Figure G‑4 shows the proportion of respondents aged 16 and over who had been involved in social action in the last 12 months, as reported in the 2021-22 and 2023-24 surveys; social action refers to people coming together to help improve their lives and solve the problems that are important in their communities.

Across both survey periods, proportionally more people living in Rural areas had been involved in social action compared to those living in Urban areas. In the 2023-24 survey, 18% of people in Rural areas said they had been involved in social action in the previous 12 months; this was 6 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (12%). Compared to the 2021-22 survey, there was no significant change in the proportion of respondents who said they had been involved in social action in Rural areas, but in Urban areas, the proportion had increased by 1 percentage point (Note G-4).

Figure G‑4: Bar chart showing the proportion of respondents who have been involved in social action in the last 12 months, by Rural-Urban Classification, England, during survey periods 2021-22 and 2023-24

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

The 2021-22 survey relates to the period spanning October 2021 to September 2022. The 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024.

The bar charts in Figure G‑5 highlight the proportion of people engaging with civic society, as reported in the 2021-22 and 2023-24 surveys; see Note G-5 for the definitions of terms used.

The left-hand bar chart in Figure G‑5 shows the proportion of respondents who had participated in democratic processes (civic participation) in the 12 months prior to each survey. Based on survey responses, proportionally more people had participated in Rural areas compared to Urban areas. In the 2023-24 survey period, 35% of Rural respondents had participated in the previous 12 months; this was 3 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (33%). There was no significant change in the proportion of respondents who had engaged in civic participation between the 2021-22 and 2023-24 surveys (Note G-4).

The middle bar chart in Figure G‑5 shows the proportion of respondents who had taken part in consultations regarding local services (civic consultation) in the 12 months prior to each survey. In the 2023-24 survey, 22% of Rural respondents had taken part in these consultations in the previous 12 months; this was 4 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (18%). There was no significant change in the proportion of respondents who had engaged in civic consultation between the 2021-22 and 2023-24 surveys (Note G-4).

The right-hand bar chart in Figure G‑5 shows the proportion of respondents who had been involved in decision-making about local services (civic activism) in the 12 months prior to each survey. In the 2023-24 survey, 10% of Rural respondents reported to have been involved in civic activism in the previous 12 months; this was 3 percentage points higher than in Urban areas (7%). There was no significant change in the proportion of respondents who had engaged in civic activism between the 2021-22 and 2023-24 surveys (Note G-4).

Figure G‑5: Bar charts showing the proportion of respondents who engaged in civic participation (left-hand chart), civic consultation (middle chart), or civic activism (right-hand chart), by Rural-Urban Classification, England, during survey periods 2021-22 and 2023-24

The legend is presented in the same order and orientation as the clusters of bars.

The 2021-22 survey relates to the period spanning October 2021 to September 2022. The 2023-24 survey relates to the period spanning October 2023 to March 2024.

Feelings about the local neighbourhood - explanatory notes

Note G-1

Tables showing the data relating to this section are available in the Communities and Households supplementary data tables.

Note G-2

The Community Life survey (CLS) ran throughout different periods in 2021-22 (October 2021 to September 2022) and 2023-24 (October 2023 to March 2024). Despite the shorter survey period in 2023-24, there were at least 10 (and up to 20) times more respondents to each question compared to the 2021-22 survey; for example, there were 5,838 responses to the question “How strongly do you feel about your immediate neighbourhood?” in England in 2021-22, compared to 107,311 in 2023-24. Therefore, survey results are not directly comparable but have been provided instead as an indication of change.

Note G-3

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) took on responsibility for publishing results from the Community Life survey (CLS) for 2016-17 onwards. More information on the survey is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/community-life-survey--2.

Note G-4

Whilst the figures in this section might appear to show inter-year variations in the proportion of respondents expressing a certain opinion about their neighbours and neighbourhood, we have to be careful about how much emphasis is placed on these inter-year changes. DCMS provide lower and upper estimates indicating the range of values within which the true value would reside; this is often within 2 or 3 percent. Based on these estimates, they also provide the indication of change (e.g. “increase”, “decrease”, or “no change”). Inter-year variations are only specified within this report where they are done so in the source data tables.

Note G-5

Civic participation refers to engagement in democratic processes, both in person and online, including signing a petition or attending a public rally. It does not include voting.

Civic consultation refers to taking part in consultations about local service, both in person and online.

Civic activism refers to involvement in decision-making about local services, both in person and online. Some responses options, such as being a local councillor or school governor, were not presented as options to those aged under 18.

Appendix 1: The 8 thematic reports that make up the Statistical Digest of Rural England

(and the topics included within them)

Population

Population level and change

Population age profile

Internal migration

Local Authority population data

Census 2021: Population

Housing

Housing stock: age and type

Housing stock: additions and affordable housing

Housing market

Second and empty homes

Homelessness

Land use change for housing

Housing quality

Health and Wellbeing

Life expectancy and Mortality

Wellbeing

NHS Dentistry provision

NHS General Practices

Childcare provision

Loneliness

Volunteering and charity

Communities and Households

Index of Multiple Deprivation

English Indices of Deprivation

Poverty due to low income

Household expenditure

Police recorded crime and outcomes

Crime surveys: local police and businesses

Feelings about the local neighbourhood

Connectivity and Accessibility

Broadband

Mobile coverage

Average travel patterns

Access to vehicles and charging infrastructure

Transport connectivity

Home working

Education, Qualifications and Training

Schools and their workforce

Class sizes

Secondary education attainment

School inspections

Free school meals - eligibility

Alternative and specialist education provision

Progression to higher education

Apprenticeships and on-the-job training

Workforce education level

Rural Economic Bulletin

Employment

Earnings

Redundancies

Unemployment-related benefits

Output and productivity measured by Gross Value Added (GVA)

Business demographics

Businesses by industry

Business survival and growth

Innovation and investment

Energy

Fuel poverty

Energy Performance Certificates: average Energy Efficiency Score

Energy Performance Certificates: achieving energy efficiency category C

Central heating

Energy Consumption

Estimated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from domestic properties

Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) take up

Each of the 8 themes also has their own set of supplementary data tables that include the larger source data that could not be included in the presented document. The chapter headings above are hyperlinked to the home page for that specific digest theme. The supplementary tables can be accessed from these home pages.

Appendix 2: Defining Rural areas

Wherever possible, the Rural-Urban Classification is used to distinguish Rural and Urban areas. The Classification defines areas as Rural if they fall outside of settlements with more than 10,000 resident population.

Census Output Areas are the smallest areas for which data are available from Censuses. These Census Output Areas are assigned to one of four Urban or six Rural categories (Figure X-1) based on dwelling densities. Those described as “in a sparse setting” reflect where the wider area is sparsely populated (again based on dwelling densities). From Census Output Areas, other small area geographies can be classified based on how they map to Census Output Areas (such as Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs), Wards, and postcodes – Note 1).

Figure X-1: Classifying Rural and Urban areas for small geographical areas

A map showing the distribution of the Rural and Urban Census Output Areas is shown in Figure X-2.

When data are not available at a small geographical scale, it may be possible to apply the Rural-Urban Local Authority Classification or a similar classification for other larger geographies. This classification categorises districts and unitary authorities on a six-point scale from Rural to Urban. It is underpinned by Rural and Urban populations as defined by the Census Output Area Classification. A map of the geographical distribution of the Rural and Urban Local Authorities is shown in Figure X-3.

However, the Local Authority Classification also considers some Urban areas as Hub Towns (with populations of between 10,000 and 30,000). These Hub Towns have met statistical criteria (based on dwelling and business premise densities) to be considered hubs for services and businesses for a wider rural hinterland and their populations are therefore classified as effectively Rural for the purposes of determining the classification of the authority.

Figure X-2: Map of the 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for Census Output Areas in England

Figure X-3: Map of the 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for Local Authority Districts and Unitary Authorities in England

Under the classification, which is shown in Figure X-4, each Local Authority is assigned to one of six categories on the basis of the percentage of the total resident population accounted for by the combined Rural and Hub Town components of its population and its 'conurbation context'. The Local Authority Classification categories are frequently aggregated to ‘Predominantly Rural’, ‘Urban with Significant Rural’ and ‘Predominantly Urban’ as shown on Figure X-4.

Figure X-4: 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for Local Authorities in England

The Local Authority Rural-Urban Classification is based on populations and settlement patterns, not on how much countryside there is. Authorities classified as Urban may have wide areas of countryside and may have sizeable Rural populations. The classification has been made according to the proportions of the population residing in Urban settlements and outside Urban settlements. More information on the classifications can be found at: The Rural-Urban Definition.

A similar approach to that for Local Authorities was used to create a classification for Westminster Parliamentary Constituencies. Under this classification, which is shown in Figure X-5, each Parliamentary Constituency is assigned to one of six categories on the basis of the percentage of the total resident population accounted for by the combined Rural and Hub Town components of its population and its 'conurbation context'. A map of the geographical distribution of the Rural and Urban Westminster Parliamentary Constituencies is shown in Figure X-5. This map depicts a classification for the new rebalanced Parliamentary Constituencies that were introduced for 2024 General Election. The Parliamentary Constituency Classification categories are frequently aggregated to ‘Predominantly Rural’, ‘Urban with Significant Rural’ and ‘Predominantly Urban’ as shown on Figure X-6.

Figure X‑5: Map of the 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for Westminster Parliamentary Constituencies in England

Figure X‑6: 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for Westminster Parliamentary Constituencies in England

Defining Rural areas explanatory notes

Note 1: Defining Super Output Areas and Wards

Census Output Areas (OAs) were created for publication of the results of the recent Censuses. They cover around 125 households. In practice few datasets are produced at OA level. However, other larger geographies can be built up from OAs. These include Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) which typically contain 5 OAs, so contain approximately 625 households or a population of approximately 1,500 and a minimum 1,000. Their Rural-Urban Classification is based on the majority category of OAs they contain. Some other geographies, for example postcodes are classified based on the location of their central point and the classification of respective OA.

Note 2: Accessibility of Figure X-2

We accept that this map might not be accessible for all users, but it is difficult to develop a map containing six colours that will provide enough contrast between all colours to enable every user to see them, especially when the shaded areas are small. Separate maps (showing only three levels of shading) for Rural and Urban areas are available on request from: rural.statistics@defra.gov.uk