Policy paper

A new approach to place targeting across DCMS programmes

Published 22 May 2026

Overview

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is committed to making a difference in the places that need it the most, through investing to build social and community cohesion and to enhance opportunity where outcomes are poorest.

Evidence points clearly to economic and social outcomes being systematically worse in places where both deprivation and community need is highest; places experiencing ‘double disadvantage’.^{[footnote 1]} For this reason, across our programmes that aim to improve social and community outcomes, we will look to implement a tailored focus on targeting these ‘double disadvantage’ places – to ensure that our funding is concentrated in the communities where we can make the biggest difference.

For the purposes of this approach to place targeting, we define and measure deprivation according to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)^{[footnote 2]}. The IMD captures a range of deprivation criteria including: income; employment; health and disability; education and skills; crime; housing; and living environment. We define and measure community need according to the Community Needs Index (CNI)^{[footnote 3]}. The CNI captures challenges such as poor access to services, limited community infrastructure and low civic participation.

The methodological principles behind this approach are consistent with those adopted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) in the place selection methodology for the Pride in Place Programme in phase 2. We have deliberately aligned our approach to ensure a common basis for prioritising need. Both methodologies use a composite measure of deprivation and local community need. More information on the place selection for the Pride in Place programme can be found in the corresponding methodology note.^{[footnote 4]} 

Application and methodology

DCMS will apply this approach to relevant programmes aimed at improving social, community and wellbeing outcomes across all of our sectors – covering arts, culture and heritage, sport, civil society and youth.^{[footnote 5]} Not all places experiencing ‘double disadvantage’ are the same, and places will have different needs for different DCMS programmes. 

When applying this approach to place targeting, programmes will be required to allocate funding on the basis of a place’s economic and social need – as measured by IMD and CNI – alongside relevant programme-specific considerations. In practice, this will result in more of our funding being directed towards places experiencing ‘double disadvantage’.

When deciding how best to apply this approach to meet policy objectives, which will be different for different programmes, particular consideration will need to be given to the number of places in scope for targeting, and the proportion of total funding that each of those places receives. Specific applications of the approach will also need to be considered alongside the respective delivery model of the programme – for example, in cases where competition forms part of the allocation process.

In order to achieve this prioritisation towards economic and social need, IMD and CNI will represent at least 50% of an applicable programme’s targeting criteria, with programme-specific considerations representing the remainder (up to 50%). This will help to ensure that a critical mass of our funding reaches the areas that need it the most, whilst also recognising the diverse aims of the programmes we deliver.

IMD and CNI are composite indices covering a broad range of economic and social measures. Given this breadth, there are likely to be instances where programme-specific considerations overlap with the constituent IMD or CNI metrics. In these cases, it might be appropriate for metrics already captured by IMD or CNI to be added as a programme-specific indicator, as a means by which to apply more weighting to that component.

Our approach encourages consideration of place targeting at different levels of geography, upwards from Lower Super Output Area (LOSA), depending on the scope and aims of the respective programme. For example, hyperlocal interventions could look to combine IMD, CNI and programme-specific metrics at the LSOA level to prioritise places.

Double disadvantage in Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs)^{[footnote 6]}

Map description: LSOAs experiencing the most double disadvantage are concentrated in urban and coastal areas in the North, throughout the coast, and in rural parts of the North East.

Where targeting is being applied at a higher level of geography, application of our methodology will typically use LSOA disadvantage as the basis for that aggregation. For example, ‘double disadvantage’ at the Local Authority District (LAD) level would be based on the share of constituent LSOAs that rank in the worst-performing quintile for both deprivation and community need.

The share of local authorities’ LSOAs that are in double disadvantage^{[footnote 7]}

Map description: The share of local authorities’ LSOAs in double disadvantage ranges from 0% to 49%. 

Programme-specific methodological publications

This approach is intended to be flexible to support the range of policy initiatives that DCMS supports, and eligible programmes will need to apply this overarching methodology in different ways. As these programme-specific approaches to place targeting are implemented, the methodologies will be separately published.

1. See for example: OCSI. 2020. Left-behind areas 2020 - Interim Set. ↩

2. This would typically be the overall IMD but we might also make use of the supplementary indices (e.g. the IDACI) in some cases. MHCLG. 2025. English indices of deprivation 2025: statistical release. ↩

3. OCSI. English Community Needs Index. The dataset can be obtained through submitting a request to OSCI. ↩

4. MHCLG. 2026. Pride in Place Programme Phase 2: methodology note. ↩

5. This approach will not be applied to programmes aimed primarily at driving economic growth or programmes that clearly have a distinct objective. ↩

6. LSOAs ranked according to the average of their IMD rank and CNI rank. ↩

7. Here we define an LSOA as being in double disadvantage if it is in the worst-performing 20% of LSOAs for both the IMD and CNI. ↩