A Guide to Using Area-Based Measures to Improve Equality of Opportunity
Universities have a crucial role to play in fostering equality of opportunity and breaking down barriers to higher education. Efforts to widen participation and access are abundant throughout the sector, with many providers already striving to attract and support underrepresented or disadvantaged students. The sector regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), is also increasingly making it a requirement for HE providers to demonstrate their efforts to widen participation through mechanisms such as Access and Participation plans, the B3 Conditions of Registration and the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register.
Despite this, systemic inequalities persist and students from disadvantaged backgrounds have lower participation rates than their more advantaged peers. For example, a government report in 2021/22 found that the gap in progression rates between students eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) and those not eligible for FSM reached an all-time high of 20.2 percentage points. As a result, universities – and widening participation practitioners in particular – are seeking effective and impactful means to increase progression to higher education for these groups.
A powerful tool in this work is the use of area-based measures to understand the complex landscape of inequality and build targeted approaches to widening participation. In this guide, we outline:
why area-based measures are important;
the different kinds of measures used in the UK;
the benefits and limitations of using area-based measures;
and creative ways practitioners can implement area-based measures in widening participation activities.
The Context: Why Are Area-Based Measures Important?
Inequality is complex in the UK. Socioeconomic status and cultural factors play a large role in educational attainment and aspirations.
To understand this in practice, one needs only to look at a 2024 report by the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON), which found that, while the progression rate to higher education for young people on free school meals (FSM) in London is around 50%, elsewhere across the country it sits at around 30%. These statistics indicate how socioeconomic status alone isn’t enough to understand the specific barriers individuals face to entering higher education – information such as geographical location can be equally important.
Regional inequalities in outcomes exist for a variety of factors, including:
Funding disparities: councils in disadvantaged areas often cannot offer the same funding to local schools as those in wealthier areas.
Socioeconomic background: Children from low-income families are more likely to underperform academically regardless of region but regional disparities worsen this issue as areas with higher poverty rates may have fewer resources to support disadvantaged students.
Early Years Education: Access to high-quality early years education can significantly improve a child’s chances of succeeding in later schooling, but regions with lower funding may have fewer pre-school options.
Teacher quality and recruitment: Schools in deprived areas may struggle to attract and retain highly qualified teachers.
This is where area-based measures come in. This is because they enable HE providers to identify target areas and developing programmes and interventions to counteract the factors listed above. As a result, higher education institutions can ensure that their efforts to widen participation are having an impact across the UK, and not just in small pockets of society.
What Are the Different Kinds of Area-Based Measures?
There is not just one area-based measures but multiple. As such, it’s important to understand them all and their various differences to know which ones to use.
Using student or applicant postcodes, providers can determine levels of disadvantage or deprivation according to the following area-based measures:
POLAR: Developed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in 2002, this system divides UK neighbourhoods into five quintiles based on the participation rates of 18-year-olds in higher education. Quintile 1 represents the areas with the lowest participation rates, and Quintile 5 represents the highest.
Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD): This is a government-produced measure that combines multiple factors like income, employment, health, education, and crime to identify deprived areas at different geographical levels.
HESA small-area disadvantage measure: This measure, developed by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) in 2021, uses census data to capture deprivation at even finer levels, providing more granular insights to specific communities.
TUNDRA: Finally, TUNDRA (which stands for tracking underrepresentation by area) was developed by the Office for Students (OfS) in 2019. Like POLAR, it classifies local areas into five quintiles. However, this relatively new measure focuses on the participation rate of state-funded mainstream pupils and only applies to England.
The approach your university uses to measure area-based inequality and devise a widening participation agenda in response will depend on the specific context of your institution. POLAR is arguably the most widely used measure across the sector; however, the development of new measures, such as HESA’s approach and TUNDRA, is opening the door for more comprehensive ways of understanding relative deprivation.
The Benefits of Area-Based Measures
Some of the potential benefits of applying these measures in your efforts to widen participation include:
Identifying hidden disadvantage: Individual-based measures (like FSM eligibility) don’t always capture the full picture. Area-based measures can identify disadvantaged communities where multiple forms of deprivation exist, even if individual students don’t fall under traditional disadvantage markers.
Addressing regional inequalities: These measures help target interventions towards specific areas with historically low participation rates in higher education, contributing to a more equitable distribution of educational opportunities across the UK. This is increasingly important as discourses and policy around the levelling up agenda come into focus.
Informing policy decisions: Data from area-based measures can guide effective allocation or resources and the development of targeted outreach programmes in areas with the greatest need.
Potential Limitations of Area-Based Measures
While area-based measures can illustrate a more dynamic picture of educational disadvantage, they are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and should always be combined with other approaches. Be aware of the following when using them:
Not a perfect indicator: Area-based measures can sometimes mask individual circumstances and diversity within a specific area. Combining them with individual-level data is crucial for painting a more complete picture.
Data accuracy and updates: Maintaining and updating these measures to reflect real-time changes in local situations is important, so they are labour intensive.
Concerns around stigmatisation: Area-based measures should be used responsibly to ensure they don’t contribute to the negative labelling or stereotyping of communities.
How Are Universities Using Area-Based Measures in Widening Participation Activities?
Having discussed the benefits and limitations of these measures, next is understanding how they are being used across the sector. Some examples include:
Contextual Admissions: This approach considers an applicant’s academic achievement within the context of their school and geographical background. Universities can adjust entry requirements to account for factors like school performance in disadvantaged areas, ensuring a fairer evaluation of individual potential. For an example, take a look at the details of the University of Bath’s contextual admissions approach, which uses IMD data.
Targeted Outreach Programmes: Engaging directly with schools and communities in low-participation areas is crucial. Universities can organise workshops, mentoring programmes and campus visits to demystify higher education and raise aspirations. Edge Hill University, for example, give priority to students from low participation neighbourhoods (using POLAR to calculate this) in their pre-16 activity days.
Scholarship and Bursary Schemes: Financial barriers can be a major hurdle for many students from deprived areas. Offering area-specific scholarships and bursaries can ease the burden, making university more accessible for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. Providers such as Goldsmiths offer a bursary for students form POLAR4 (Quintile 1), while the University of Bristol’s Accommodation Bursary is available to those from Quintiles 1 and 2.
Using Data to Drive Decision Making: Analysing data on student demographics, progression rates and geographical origins can pinpoint which areas require focused efforts in your widening participation strategy. By understanding the specific challenges faced by different communities, universities can tailor their outreach and support initiatives effectively. HESA, for instance, investigated how the correlation between their small-area disadvantage measure and degree attainment varied by family background. Such research can be used to develop outreach and access programmes that respond to this complex picture of disadvantage. With universities now required to submit Access and Participation plans, data-led decisions around widening participation are becoming increasingly vital.
Next Steps: Towards a More Complete Picture of Inequality in Higher Education
This article has outlined key considerations for universities to consider around using area-based measures in widening participation efforts, including:
What area-based measures are and why they are relevant to widening participation
The different kinds of measures that exist and their characteristics
The benefits and limitations of using area-based measures
How universities are already using area-based measures in efforts to widen participation.
Implementing area-based measures requires sustained commitment and collaboration. Universities must break down silos, in addition to working alongside government, schools and community organisations to create a supportive higher education landscape that fosters equality of opportunity for all.
For more inspiration, take a look at HE Professional’s premium content for widening participation leaders and practitioners. Our case studies and examples of best practice across the sector highlight innovation and the latest evidence in driving enhancement in frontline delivery for students.
