Wakefield Council – Public Health Intelligence Wakefield Joint Strategic Needs Assessment
Children and Young People
Children & Young People JSNA Working Group
Version Control
Version Date Notes 0.1 09/07/2014 First draft – needs assessment informing the early help offer for Wakefield 0.2 13/02/2015 Updated to the standard JSNA template. Detailed Children’s Centre analysis has been removed to avoid disclosure. Some numbers have been suppressed/removed to avoid disclosure. 0.3 30/03/2015 Additional child sexual exploitation information added
Working Group Members
Name Role Organisation Business Development Various WMDC Team Warren Holroyd Public Health Intelligence Manager WMDC Gill Thomas Senior public Health intelligence Analyst WMDC
1 Table of Contents
Version Control ...... 1 Working Group Members ...... 1 Introduction ...... 6 What we have done so far ...... 7 Journey of the child ...... 7 Troubled Families and South East Pilot...... 7 Common Assessment Framework ...... 8 Re-designed Front Door ...... 8 Children in Need (CiN) Audit ...... 9 Integrated Early Help Hubs ...... 9 The needs assessment – Aims and Objectives ...... 9 Demographics ...... 11 Vulnerable children and parenting support ...... 13 Wakefield Common Assessment Framework (CAF)...... 13 Children’s Social care ...... 17 Referrals ...... 17 Children in Need (CiN) ...... 18 Child Protection (CP) ...... 18 Looked After Children (LAC) ...... 19 Child sexual exploitation ...... 20 Domestic Violence ...... 22 Safe@Home Domestic Abuse Data ...... 23 Parental mental health issues ...... 24 Parents with substance misuse problems ...... 25 Lone parents ...... 25 Young parents ...... 26 Local Teenage Conception Rates ...... 28 Support for fathers ...... 28 Parents with multiple births ...... 29 Children and parents with a disability ...... 29 Families with multiple problems ...... 30 Targeted Youth Support Services ...... 31 Health and Well-Being ...... 31 Child Poverty ...... 32 Pregnancy ...... 35 Childhood Immunisations ...... 37 Childhood Obesity ...... 37 Reducing Hospital Admissions ...... 38
2 Current Early Help Provision ...... 39 Troubled Families ...... 39 Children’s Centres ...... 39 Access to services ...... 40 Family Support within Children’s Centres ...... 42 Two Year Old Offer ...... 44 Early Years Foundation Stage Profile ...... 45 The Benefits of Early Intervention ...... 46 Services to support vulnerable children and families with specific needs ...... 47 The Local Offer for Integrated Early Help ...... 48 A new Way of Working ...... 48 The Children’s Centre Data Analysis ...... 50 The Proposed Model for Children’s Centres ...... 51 Children’s Centre recommendations ...... 53 Proposals for Castlford ...... 53 Proposals for Normanton and Featherstone ...... 54 Proposals for Pontefract and Knottingley ...... 55 Proposals for South East ...... 56 Proposals for Wakefield Central ...... 57 Proposals for Wakefield North West ...... 58 Proposals for Wakefield Rural ...... 59 Children’s Centre Detailed Data Analysis ...... 60 Wakefield District ...... 60 High Level Indicators – 7 Area analysis ...... 61 Data Sources and Methodology...... 62 7 Areas Data ...... 62 Children’s Centre Data ...... 67
3 Table of Tables Table 1 Ward Population Estimates based on 2011 Census – Ages 0-19 ...... 11 Table 2 Approximate rate of CAF’s for each age group ...... 16 Table 3 Referral rates and the percentage of initial assessments to referrals ...... 17 Table 4 Referrals to Social Care by Age 2012/13 ...... 18 Table 5 The number and rate of CiN by year ...... 18 Table 6 The number and rate of children subject to a child protection plan by year ...... 18 Table 7 The number and rate of LAC by year ...... 20 Table 8 Presenting factors of adults with children in the home ...... 23 Table 9 Lone parent not in employment: Total (% of all lone parents) ...... 26 Table 10 The number of live births to mothers under 20 in Wakefield ...... 27 Table 11 The number of first and second deliveries to mothers under the age of 20 in Wakefield district...... 28 Table 12 Lone Parent Registered and Seen 2013/14 ...... 28 Table 13 Disabled Children and Disabled Parents registered and Seen ...... 30 Table 14 YOT/TYS Interventions and ASB incidents ...... 31 Table 15 Table of people and children living in 10% most deprived areas of Wakefield...... 33 Table 16 The number and percentage of out of work benefit claimant households with children aged 0-15 in 2012, and the number and percentage of households with dependent children where there is no adult in employment in 2011...... 34 Table 17 Table showing further benefits data ...... 34 Table 18 Low birth weight babies by area 2007-2011 ...... 36 Table 19 Breastfeeding rates by area in 2011 ...... 37 Table 20 Immunisation rates within Wakefield...... 37 Table 21 Reach, Registered Seen 2010-2014 (across all Children’s Centres) ...... 40 Table 22 Children Seen Once by Area in 2013/14 ...... 41 Table 23 The number and percentage of children living within the 10% and 30% most deprived areas who did not attend a Children’s Centre over the year to April 2014 ...... 42 Table 24 The take up of the two year old offer by School term in each ward in Wakefield...... 45 Table 25 Early Years Foundation Stage Profile Results 2013 ...... 46
4 Table of Figures Figure 1 Breakdown of the number of CAF’s received by Post Code ...... 15 Figure 2 Number of children by age in years at the time of the CAF assessment ...... 15 Figure 3 Number of children recommended for CAF support following a referral to Social Care ...... 16 Figure 4 Number of children transferred to CAF from Social Care Teams ...... 16 Figure 5 Smoking in Pregnancy ...... 35 Figure 6 Reach, Registered, Seen 2010-2014 ...... 41 Figure 7 Children’s Centre Family Support Cases at CiN on 31 st March 2014 compared to Open CiN Cases living in Reach on 31 st March 2014 ...... 43 Figure 8 Children’s Centre Family Support Cases at CP on 31 st march 2014 compared to Open CiN Cases living in Reach on 31 st March 2014 ...... 43 Figure 9 Children’s Centre Family Support Cases for LAC on 31 st March 2014 compared to Looked After Children placed in Reach on 31 st March 2014 ...... 44
5 Introduction Early help and where necessary intervention, is widely accepted as being critical in ensuring children reach their potential in life. Wakefield is committed to supporting children and young people by providing appropriate; emotional and physical health, education and financial support and by enabling them to live in safety in a free from crime environment.
Such intentions must however be placed in context against the extensive financial challenges facing the Council. Within Wakefield increased numbers of Looked after Children, more children subject to a child protection plan and very high levels of child in need (CiN) all place significant pressures on budgets and on social worker case loads.
As a result of the huge economic challenges we are experiencing, we are also facing further unprecedented challenges in how we deliver services, which are forcing us to radically rethink how we manage our resources (including staffing and financial), whilst still maintaining effective services for the people of Wakefield.
In addition to the extensive financial pressures faced by the Council, there are other significant challenges including: • The new Children’s Services Ofsted Framework bringing a greater focus on outcomes and the needs of the child throughout their journey • Findings from Serious Case Reviews (SCRs), both nationally and in Wakefield have concluded that a lack of joined up working and information sharing, poor assessments and fragmentation of service delivery, has led to the most catastrophic consequences for children • Demand for acute and reactive services has dramatically increased. Despite concerted efforts to deal with referrals in a more joined up way, open case numbers remain high and CiN cases make up a large percentage of this figure, causing social workers to hold higher than manageable caseloads • There are still significant challenges as referenced in our Children and Young People’s Outcomes Framework and Children and Young People’s Strategy that we must address • The landscape of public services is changing. Both national and local policy is leading us towards an integrated public sector workforce
It is clear, therefore, that we cannot continue to deliver services in the way we have in the past, if we are to improve outcomes for children, young people and families. By reshaping services to; work holistically with families; improve engagement with partners and revise intervention thresholds we will create an integrated early help offer. Through this we will identify earlier emerging needs for children, young people and families with multiple difficulties, and enable a holistic response to address those needs, to prevent them from escalating.
This new approach requires significant cultural change from all agencies and professionals working with children and families with regard to working practices, roles and responsibilities, multi-agency co-operation and in how we engage with families. Some of this work has already commenced in Wakefield and is having a positive impact on outcomes for vulnerable children and families.
6
What we have done so far
Whilst there has been a wealth of work undertaken to understand and tackle the varied needs of children, young people and families, both through universal provision and more targeted services, this has gathered momentum over the past 18 months given the increasing need to think more creatively, achieve more for less and crucially offer better integrated working. Some of the key components of this ongoing work are as follows;
Journey of the child The Journey of the Child work undertaken in 2013, resulted from the scrutiny of outcomes for children and families and reviews of service demand. It was evidenced that significant amounts of public spend occurs due to the numbers of agencies involved in the care of children and young people, working in isolation and with duplication of roles and interventions. This is clearly not acceptable either financially or for the family who have to ‘tell their story’ to several different professionals and as such are not receiving the best quality of services.
One of the key conclusions of the review was that more needed to be done on a multi- agency basis at the ‘front door’ to ensure that referrals to social care were appropriately allocated. This review also concluded that there are insufficient early intervention and targeted services to prevent the increasing demand for children’s social care interventions and where services do exist they are fragmented and incoherent.
Following this review plans have been set out to avoid these situations (and their long-term consequences) in the future by implementing a programme of measures to provide suitable early help and support. A first step in this programme was the implementation of a Multi- agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) which went live in January 2014 (see Re-designed Front Door section ).
Troubled Families and South East Pilot Learning from the successful Troubled Families initiative and South East Pilot tells us that we need to take a more proactive and analytical approach to how we identify those children, young people and families who are most likely to have negative outcomes without targeted and earlier multi-agency interventions, and that we need to focus our resources according to need. We already have evidence from Troubled Families that this approach works and we now need to expand and implement this learning wider.
With a backdrop of 'rewiring’ public services, and a requirement to reconfigure delivery, the Integrated Area Working Pilot in the South East which is focused on a cohort of families who are creating the greatest demand on public services, seeks to act as a demonstrator for the redesign of services and potential for a more integrated public sector workforce. This targeted way of working within a locality offers an opportunity to respond directly and
7 flexibly to local needs and moves away from a centralised service delivery model ( see Troubled Families section ).
In March 2013 the Troubled Families Steering Group considered the potential service redesign aspects of the legacy to be gained from the Troubled Families programme, and agreed the following principles: • That Troubled Families be used as a vehicle to accelerate area working • That this work be undertaken alongside the ‘Child’s Journey’ Review • That Troubled Families be used to support a move from reactive to preventative services, • That Troubled Families resources should be used to test out a number of new services and changes to existing services in order to evidence ‘what works’ before proposing longer term service redesign • That Troubled Families should support changes in infrastructure, including testing out the use of community budgets and exploring integrated systems • That the legacy of this work should be proven area working, system redesign and evidence-based changes to service delivery across the Partnership
Common Assessment Framework The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is an inter-agency model which aims to provide children/young people and their families with the most appropriate services to safeguard children and to promote well-being. The CAF is a preventative model of good practice which has been embedded in practice within Wakefield for a number of years.
The tool is intended to help practitioners develop a shared understanding of a child's needs, so they can be met more effectively. This avoids children and families having to re-tell their story - resulting in a better service experience for children, young people and their families with improved outcomes. From 2007 the number of CAF’s completed each year has generally seen a significant rise year on year (see Wakefield Common Assessment Framework section ).
Re-designed Front Door Whilst undertaking the review of the ‘journey of the child’ it was also recognised that changes needed to be made to the front door service for children and young people (Social Care Direct). This was completed at the end of 2013 and the new Multi-agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) went live in January 2014. There are 4 parts to the new service; a contact centre, Triage, MASH and Emergency Duty Team for out of hours support. This team provides a multi-agency front door to manage all incoming referrals and has a number of benefits in that it enables better researching of information across partner systems, facilitates better information sharing, and uses a RAG rating to assign priority.
The team is already able to give a far richer picture of a child and the adults around them, providing better intelligence about individual children. The information will also help us to identify trends and patterns around the district around specific issues that we may want to review.
8 Children in Need (CiN) Audit The high numbers of CiN cases in Wakefield were raised as a concern within the last Ofsted Child Protection Inspection and prior to that, in a Safeguarding Peer Review in 2012. Wakefield’s children and young people’s service has not subsequently been inspected by Ofsted since October 2012 and we are currently carrying out a range of activities across the directorate to assess ourselves against the new framework to ensure that we are aware of any development work needed to improve our practice and arrangements.
As part of this on-going work we needed to undertake a more forensic examination of our CiN numbers to better understand why they remain so high and as such an intensive ‘one- off’ diagnostic period of on-site auditing took place in April 2014. The purpose of this research was to seek reasons and gain understanding of the nature of long-standing CiN cases in a climate of rising demand. The ethos was to investigate, identify issues and recommend actions and support to address issues in order to ease the pressure on the Assessment and Fieldwork teams. Hence the full involvement of social workers and team managers in open and honest case discussions and in generating ideas for improvements was vital to the success of the research.
As a result of this work a focused 10 week programme has been agreed and this is currently on-going with an aim of checking every CiN case and ensuring it has an up-to-date assessment, management oversight, a decision making footprint, a plan review within six weeks, an updated risk assessment and case summary and where appropriate the case is closed.
The next step towards our programme of change to achieve earlier intervention, better integrated working and improved outcomes for children, young people and families is the development of locality Integrated Early Help Hubs.
Integrated Early Help Hubs Part of the vision for an Integrated Early Help Offer, identifies Children’s Centre services as being a key element of this offer. A report to Leaders Strategy on 15 th April 2014 outlined that the first stage in the remodeling of current provision would be the development of seven local Integrated Early Help Hubs, co-terminus with the seven Neighbourhood Policing Teams, seven GP networks and seven local authority areas that already exist.
The needs assessment – Aims and Objectives In order to help inform the development of seven local Integrated Early Help Hubs and our Integrated Early Help Offer, we have undertaken an in depth needs assessment to identify who, and where our most vulnerable children and families are living within the district. This needs assessment looks at a wide range of factors to best understand the levels of need that exist across the district for children, young people and their families. The assessment itself is largely concerned with looking at the broader determinants of need that are either ward or district wide depending on the availability of information, however Children’s Centre data analysis has been completed and is far more focussed on the seven areas and an analysis of
9 the children centres and children’s centre offer that sit within these, a summary of this analysis is in The Children’s Centre Detailed Data Analysis section . The Children’s Centre data is not included in the public version of this document as some of the data could lead to individuals being identified.
The Government believes that Children’s Centres should have a clear core purpose, focused on improving outcomes for young children and their families, with a particular focus on those in greatest need. With major changes in the NHS organisational landscape, the move of public health responsibilities to local authorities and the financial challenges facing all public sector organisations there is a need and opportunity to commission services in a different way to deliver improved outcomes for children and their families.
As part of this major programme of change, Wakefield Council is further developing its Children’s and Young People’s Integrated Early Help Offer. A key strand of this is the proposal to realign Children’s Centre’s given their importance in how services for children and their families are delivered in the future. This needs assessment will help to support priority setting and commissioning decisions in relation to our Integrated early Help Offer going forwards.
The Children’s Centre offer will continue to be a key component of the early help offer within the Wakefield District, offering a community based front door to services for under- fives and their families. However, they will also be strengthened through an integrated locality model by allowing access to a wider more holistic offer for families that have older children or that have problems that historically have been outside the Children’s Centre remit.
Early Help Hubs will be responsible for delivering the Integrated Early Help offer within a locality and will be made up of staff either from or linked to, the following service delivery areas and teams: • Children’s Centres • Troubled Families Team • Targeted Youth Support Services • Early Intervention Team including the CAF Coordination Team • Intensive Support Team • Positive Activities • Elements of Children’s Social Care • Education Support Services • Street Scene • Neighbourhood Policing Teams • Adult Health and Communities
As part of wider developments to remodel and reconfigure services within the district, it is envisaged that the following staff teams will also work as part of Early Help Hubs: • Health Visiting Teams • School Nursing Teams • Family Nurse Partnership
10 For each of the services listed above, that will become integrated, an analysis of needs within the areas, including staffing and resource allocation will need to be considered and this needs assessment and data analysis is the first strand of this process with its focus on Children’s Centres.
This needs assessment report helps to inform recommendations relating to the future Children’s Centre model ( see Children’s Centre Recommendations section ).
Further work is in progress to develop a more comprehensive needs assessment that will be used to identify future priorities and inform commissioning decisions.
Demographics Wakefield District covers some 350 square kilometres and forms one of five districts which make up West Yorkshire. The main centres of population are Wakefield city; the five towns of the north east (Pontefract, Castleford, Knottingley, Normanton and Featherstone); Ossett and Horbury in the west and Hemsworth, South Elmsall and South Kirkby in the south-east. There are also scattered villages in the open countryside.
The current size of the population in Wakefield is 327,627, making the district the 20 th largest local authority area in England and Wales. In addition to long-term residents, 366 short-term migrants arrived in 2011 for a period of 3 to 12 months, either to work (43%) or study (57%). The table below shows the approximate breakdown by ward as at the Census undertaken in 2011.
Table 1 Ward Population Estimates based on 2011 Census – Ages 0-19
All 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 Ward Name Ages Ackworth, North Elmsall and Upton 16,115 881 847 968 1,010 Airedale and Ferry Fryston 14,844 1,049 951 907 1,003 Altofts and Whitwood 16,317 1,033 857 873 955 Castleford Central and 15,349 918 706 722 948 Glasshoughton Crofton, Ryhill and Walton 15,153 806 771 835 994 Featherstone 15,978 945 868 949 1,035 Hemsworth 15,377 947 839 884 1,033 Horbury and South Ossett 15,033 816 765 854 838 Knottingley 13,734 883 709 714 893 Normanton 16,264 1,035 918 993 1,030 Ossett 16,144 963 884 889 908 Pontefract North 15,871 1,080 934 845 903 Pontefract South 15,041 783 807 828 955 South Elmsall and South Kirkby 17,645 1,079 1,079 1,109 1,156 Stanley and Outwood East 15,343 878 778 906 936 Wakefield East 15,829 1,154 978 906 1,025
11 Wakefield North 15,764 989 839 829 861 Wakefield Rural 17,053 905 828 900 962 Wakefield South 13,562 817 721 758 769 Wakefield West 15,506 1,077 1,011 995 1,051 Wrenthorpe and Outwood West 14,511 628 698 927 909
As is typical nationally, the Wakefield age profile shows the effect of the baby-boom years of the 1950s and 1960s and greater numbers of older women than men. Overall numbers are projected to keep on increasing, albeit more slowly than elsewhere in the region, with improved life expectancy resulting in a greater proportion of the population being made up of older people.
When compared with many other metropolitan districts, Wakefield’s age profile has a smaller than average proportion of people in the 18-24 age-band (8%).
Wakefield has a relatively small but growing ethnic minority population. In 2001, 3.3% of population defined their ethnicity as other than White British; at the 2011 Census this proportion had increased to 7.2%. The largest ethnic group is now ‘Other White’, while the largest group born outside the UK is people born in Poland. The age structure of the different ethnic groups varies, with the main ethnic minority groups having a far smaller proportion of people in older age than is typical in the White British population. Correspondingly, the ‘South Asian’ and ‘Black’ population have higher proportions of people aged under 16, and the ‘White: Other’ age structure is characterised by a high proportion of young adults.
Between 2011 and 2012 there were 978 more births than deaths; 260 more people left the district to live elsewhere in England and Wales than moved in; and 492 more people migrated in from overseas than left for overseas destinations. Between 1991 and 2001 the number of deaths per year remained fairly constant, but there was a steady decline in births.
Population growth would have ceased had it not been for an increase in net migration. Since 2001 the number of births has been increasing again. Economic migration from Eastern Europe kept up net migration between 2003 and 2007 but in the last few years the number of people arriving in the district (from within the UK and from overseas) has been close to the number of people leaving. Immigration from new EU states has also contributed to the increase in the district’s fertility rate. Between 2007 and 2012 there were 1,015 live births in Wakefield to mothers from the new EU states and in 2012 13.3% of all births were to mothers born outside of the UK (8) compared to 6.9% in 2004.
The population is projected to grow to 350,459 people by 2021. Compared to now, the number of people aged under 16 is projected to increase by 10% (around 6,000 more people), the working age population (16-64) is projected to rise by 2% (around 4,100 more people); and the population aged 65 and over is projected to rise by 25% (around 14,000 more people).
12 As is the case across the country, there are parts of the Wakefield district where more people tend to be poorer, or less healthy, or more likely to be out of work. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is calculated for every neighbourhood in England every three years, and it combines issues such as income, employment, education, crime and housing.
The IMD 2010 shows that conditions have improved for some of the district’s most deprived areas relative to deprivation elsewhere in England. At the district level Wakefield is now the 67th most deprived district in England (out of 326 districts). The IMD 2010 also shows that 40,459 people in the district are living in neighbourhoods amongst the top-10% most deprived in England. This is 12.5% of the district’s population, down from 14.6% of the population in 2007.
Over recent years there have been gradual improvements to the life expectancy in the Wakefield district. Based on latest calculations (2009-11), male children born today can expect to live to the age of 77.5, compared to around 78.9 years of age across England as a whole. As is the pattern nationally, females born in Wakefield today are expected to live longer than males, to about the age of 81.5. This compares to a national life expectancy amongst women of 82.9.
Significant differences remain within the district. Males born today in the most deprived parts of the district (top-10%) can expect to live 10.6 years less than their more affluent counterparts (10% least deprived). For females the gap is 8.9 years. There is also evidence to suggest that this gap is widening.
Vulnerable children and parenting support
Wakefield Common Assessment Framework (CAF)
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) within Wakefield has been embedded in practice for a number of years and operates as an inter-agency model aiming to provide children/young people and their families with the most appropriate services to safeguard children and to promote well-being. The Model covers all children/young people, from the provision of universal services through to those who have additional, special needs and those in need of protection.
From 2007 the number of new CAF’s completed has generally seen a significant rise year on year. The CAF team compile a quarterly performance report, however this is yet to include Troubled Families (Think Family) data. The majority of cases where Think Family keyworkers complete an assessment are at CAF level and it is expected that this will increase the number of CAF’s completed, therefore continuing the upward trajectory. This information will be provided by the Troubled Families team and will be included in the 2013/14 Annual Quality & Performance Report published in June 2014.
13 Performance reports show that there continues to be a good spread of CAFs across the Wakefield District and across all professionals although some services are showing a reduction in the number of CAF’s they complete. Reasons for this include:
• CAF is no longer being used by Children’s Centres as the referral tool for the 2 year old offer (as no longer required) • Troubled Families data not yet included • CAF paperwork not being sent in to the team and so not recorded • Pressures on the CAF team reducing the amount of promotional work being undertaken
In 2011/12 213 completed CAFs were received from Children Centre’s, however this dropped substantially to 133 in 2012/13. This is likely to be due to a CAF no longer being a requirement for access to the 2 year offer. There was also a significant reduction of CAFs received from Health, 107 in 2011/12 and 74 in 2012/13.
The number of cases being passed to CAF from Social Care and cases being ‘stepped down’ to CAF from Child in Need (CiN) increased significantly in Quarter 4 of 2012/13. This increase has continued and the total number of cases transferred to CAF from Social Care in the first three quarters of 2013/14 is 1353. This compares with 869 in the whole of 2012/13. The Early Intervention and Prevention Team (EIPT) continue to work closely with all social care teams to support cases transferring to CAF.
The number of referrals into the front door service continues to increase and the number of open cases in the Assessment and Child Protection teams has also continued to rise, despite efforts to close cases to CAF where the threshold for Social Care is no longer met. It would appear that the number of cases escalating into Social Care still exceeds the numbers being closed, however as previously mentioned (CiN Audit section ) there is concerted effort to reduce the current number of CiN cases and as such we may see further rises in the number of CAFs when that work is completed in June 2014.
14 Figure 1 Breakdown of the number of CAF’s received by Post Code
200
180
160
140
120 2009/10 2010/11 100 2011/12 80 2012/13
60
40
20
0 r e s y 2 7 0 9 t d F5 F8 as ee WF1 WF WF3 WF4 W WF6 WF W WF9 F1 F1 L rnsle W WF11 WF12 W Ba Donc
There is still a good spread of CAFs across all postcode areas with expected peaks in WF2, WF9 and WF10.
Figure 2 Number of children by age in years at the time of the CAF assessment
140 120 100 80 2011/12 60 2012/13 40 20 0
rn 2 3 6 8 9 1 4 7 o r 1 o o 13 16 b e to t to to t 1 1 d 1 2 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 6 to 7 7 8 to to to to n 9 to 10 0 2 3 5 Un u 1 11 to 121 1 14 to 151 16 to 117 to 18
The chart shows the high proportion of CAF’s for 2 year olds in 2011/12. A proportion of these are likely to have been completed for access to the two year offer.
15
Table 2 Approximate rate of CAF’s for each age group
Under 4’s 8.8 3 per 1000 5-9 years 15.1 per 1000 10-14 years 19.5 per 1000 15 -19 years 4.6 per 1000
Figure 3 Number of children recommended for CAF support following a referral to Social Care
The number of cases being passed to CAF from Social Care has continued to remain high since Quarter 4 of 2012/13.
In the last year the EIPT has worked closely with Children’s Social Care to try and move cases from Social Care into CAF where appropriate. This work has included running CAF clinics at Area Child Protection (ACP) teams, attending final CiN meetings where appropriate and supporting Social Care as needed.
Figure 4 Number of children transferred to CAF from Social Care Teams
16 The number of cases being ‘stepped down’ to CAF from CiN also remains high. The chart above shows cases which were recommended for CAF support from Social Care teams. This would mean that the cases have had some form of assessment or intervention prior to ‘stepping down’ to CAF.
The above two sets of figures considered together evidences that the number of children being recommended to be supported at CAF level continues to increase, although the majority of cases are now coming in from the front door as opposed to de-escalation via Area Child Protection (ACP) teams.
Children’s Social care In the year 2012/13 there were 4,706 referrals made to Children’s Social Care, an increase of 540 on the previous financial year, and this equated to 689.1 per 10,000 population. Although a majority of these were ultimately closed or signposted onto other services, 48% (2257) were passed on to an Area Child Protection team for an initial assessment.
There has been a rising trend in nearly all indicators of Social Care need across the district in the last five years. Pending validation as part of the CiN Census return, the out-turn figure for 2013/14 for referrals passed to the Social Care fieldwork teams is 5331. Of these 49.5% were female and 50.5% male, 116 were unborn children of unknown gender.
Referrals
Whilst the picture fluctuates, there was a significant drop in the number of referrals that escalated to an initial assessment in 2012/13 over the previous year and this is set against a significant increase in the number of referrals.
Table 3 Referral rates and the percentage of initial assessments to referrals
09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 No. of Referrals 5,239 4,634 4,166 4706 Rate for 10,000 pop 765.1 679.4 609 689.1
No. of initial 2697 2174 2294 2257 assessments % of IA to Referrals 51.5% 46.9% 55.1% 48%
Table 4 shows the breakdown of referrals by age of the child. 33% of the referrals were for children in the early years age groups (aged 0-4) with a further 37% in the primary school age groups (aged 5-11). Therefore 70% of referrals passed to teams are for children under the age of 12.
17 Table 4 Referrals to Social Care by Age 2012/13 Number % of of Referrals Age Referrals Unborn 116 2% 0 - 4 1783 33% 5 - 11 1960 37% 12 - 16 1270 24% 17 202 4% All 5331
Children in Need (CiN)
The rising trend in referrals to Social Care is mirrored by rising rates of Children in Need. The table below shows the increase in Child in Need cases over the last 5 years. Between 2009/10 and 2013/14 there has been an overall rise of 916 cases or 40.3%. The draft figures for 13/14 are lower than 12/13.
Table 5 The number and rate of CiN by year 13/14 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 (draft) No. of CiN 2271 2606 3030 3441 3187 CiN per 10,000 pop 331.6 382.1 442.9 503.9 465.9
There has been a major audit undertaken looking at cases within the Area Child Protection teams and this has identified a number of cases open at CiN which potentially could be closed. Following the findings of the audit a series of actions have been put in place to reduce the high numbers (where appropriate) and this is scheduled to run into June 2014.
Child Protection (CP)
As with CiN, the picture is the same for children subject to a child protection plan with a generally upward trend in case numbers. The draft figure for 2013/14 is just over 13% higher than 2012/13.
Table 6 The number and rate of children subject to a child protection plan by year 13/14 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 (draft) No. Subject to CP 279 337 346 338 383 CP per 10,000 pop 40.5 49.8 50.8 50 56
Children have the right to protection from harm and to the provision of any early intervention services that they may need. Children may have a range of different and complex developmental needs which must be met during different stages of childhood if optimal outcomes are to be achieved. Different aspects of development will have more or less weight at different stages of a child’s life. Each child’s development is
18 significantly shaped by his or her particular experiences and the interaction between a series of factors. Some factors are intrinsic to individual children, such as characteristics of genetic inheritance or temperament. Other factors may include particular health problems or impairment. Others may relate to their culture and to the physical and emotional environment in which a child is living.
The dimensions of a child’s developmental needs are: • Health, including growth and development as well as physical and mental well- being • Education, covering all areas of a child’s cognitive development starting from birth • Emotional and behavioural development • Identity, concerning the child’s growing sense of self as a separate and valued person. • Family and social relationships • Social presentation, concerning a child’s growing understanding of the way in which appearance, behaviour and any impairment are perceived by the outside world and the impression being created • Self-care skills, including the practical, emotional and communication competencies required for increasing independence
Critically important to a child’s health and development is the ability of parents or caregivers to ensure that the child’s developmental needs are being appropriately and adequately responded to, and to adapt to his or her changing needs over time. The dimensions of parenting capacity are: • Basic care, providing for the child’s physical needs, and appropriate medical care • Ensuring safety, so that the child is adequately protected from harm or danger • Emotional warmth, so that the child’s emotional needs are met, and giving the child a sense of being specially valued and a positive sense of their own racial and cultural identity • Stimulating and promoting the child’s learning and intellectual development through encouragement and cognitive stimulation, and promoting social opportunities • Guidance and boundaries, enabling the child to regulate their own emotions and behaviour • Providing a sufficiently stable family environment to enable a child to develop and maintain a secure attachment to the primary caregiver(s) in order to ensure optimal development
Looked After Children (LAC)
As can be seen in table 7 the numbers of looked after children have risen year on year since 2009. The rate of Looked after Children per 10,000 population has also gone up steadily. This is in line with the national trend of rising numbers of looked after children.
19
Table 7 The number and rate of LAC by year 13/14 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 (draft) No. of Looked After Children 375 397 433 446 492 Looked after Children per 10,000 pop 54.5 58 63 65.6 71.9
Nationally, looked after children are seven times more likely than their peers in the wider population to suffer from mental health problems and also seven times more likely to misuse alcohol or drugs. 20% have a statement of special educational need (compared with 3% of the general population). Young people who were looked after at one point are twice as likely to become teenage parents: 17% of young women leaving care are pregnant or already mothers while 50% of looked after girls are pregnant within two years of leaving care. Looked after young people are over-represented in the youth justice system (9% are cautioned for, or convicted of, an offence, three times higher than other young people) while about a quarter of adults in prison were looked after as a child. Between a quarter and a third of rough sleepers were looked after at one point in their lives.
Child sexual exploitation Heightened national interest in children at risk of sexual exploitation (CSE) occurred in 2014 as a result of Professor Alexis Jay’s report into the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham during the period 1997 to 2013. This report was a wake-up call for every professional working in the field of child protection. In Autumn 2014, Ofsted were tasked to build up a clearer picture of how well local authorities and their partners were carrying out their duty to prevent child sexual exploitation in their area, to offer protection to its victims and to pursue and prosecute its abusers. In November 2014 Ofsted published their findings report entitled ‘The Sexual Exploitation of Children: it couldn’t happen here could it?’ following a series of thematic inspections undertaken in 8 local authorities across the country. Their report drew upon a number of conclusions, including:
• Responding effectively to CSE is highly complex. Local authorities cannot tackle child sexual exploitation in isolation and it requires the full commitment of statutory agencies, the voluntary sector and wider communities to make child sexual exploitation everyone’s business
• The introduction of the Single Inspection Framework in 2013 has brought more focus on CSE and greater challenge to local authorities and Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards (LSCB)
• Children and young people are more effectively protected from CSE when LSCBs have an effective strategy and action plan that supports professionals to work together and share information well, which when combined with a whole system approach of awareness raising, the early identification of both victims and
20 perpetrators and disruption and prosecution, is the only route to the effective protection of children and young people from CSE
Wakefield recognises the abuse of children and young people through sexual exploitation is as serious as any other form of abuse and must be subject to the same rigour of professional intervention. However child sexual exploitation does present particular challenges to professionals and partnerships in terms of identifying that it is taking place, protecting the victims, prosecuting or disrupting the perpetrators and also working with partners to reduce vulnerability and promote resilience, so that we are able to reduce the chances of exploitation taking place at all.
All children and young people subject to CSE are seen as victims of sexual abuse and at high risk of physical and emotional harm. This is irrespective of their age or gender and is also irrespective of any perceived “risk taking behaviour” by the young person that places them at increased risk.
Regionally there is a CSE Strategic Group chaired by Wakefield’s Chair of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board. This Group has linked with the Police and Crime Commissioner who has allocated funding to the five West Yorkshire authorities for use in relation to CSE.
Wakefield’s Local Safeguarding Children’s Board has a CSE Strategic Group with representation at senior level from all key partner agencies to consider issues relating to CSE in the district. The Group has refreshed its CSE strategy for 2015 with a greater focus on prevention and is influenced by local, regional and national learning. The strategy is accompanied by an ambitious action plan, which together with their Virtual College on-line CSE training course available to staff and partner agencies, endeavours to safeguard vulnerable children and raise awareness in this area.
Wakefield has a Multi-Agency Action on Child Sexual Exploitation Panel (MAACSE) to consider all suspected or known cases of CSE and to hold strategic discussions about suspected perpetrators and ‘hot spots’ in the district. The MAACSE is supported by a police analyst who collects and analyses pieces of intelligence to support the identification of perpetrators or locations. The analysts in the different divisions across West Yorkshire also meet to ensure that cross-boundary intelligence is shared.
Working in partnership with MAACSE is the dedicated Police CSE Team who are co-located with Wakefield’s MASH and Joint Investigation Team. Within the Police CSE Team and as a result of partnership working between the LSCB and Barnardo’s is a specialist CSE Development Worker who works alongside professionals to implement direct support for victims of CSE.
With the full support and involvement of the Police CSE Team and the MAACSE Panel the Council implemented the CSE Disruption and Enforcement Group which brought together all areas of the Council with enforcement powers that could potentially be used to disrupt suspected CSE. This includes Licensing, Enforcement, Environmental Health and Trading Standards. This Group is assembled when partners of the MAACSE Panel have identified
21 premises that may be being used for the purpose of CSE and who with the police will consider what powers of inspection/enforcement can be used to disrupt the activity.
As can be seen from the above Wakefield has and continues to prioritise child sexual exploitation just as events in Rotherham and elsewhere strongly suggest it should have been. As a result, local arrangements to tackle the problem have been pro-active and are sufficiently developed to evidence a reduction in the level of risk to a number of young people referred to the MAACSE Panel. In addition, efforts to disrupt or prosecute some perpetrators have contributed to keeping young people safe from child sexual exploitation and the sharing of intelligence between agencies (and from the public) has led to a greater awareness of the extent of CSE in Wakefield, and any particularly vulnerable locations. Future developments in this area will include the LSCB working with partners to develop a safeguarding ‘app’ for teenagers that will have a CSE element.
Domestic Violence The 2010/11 British Crime Survey, whilst acknowledging that it is likely to under- estimate domestic abuse, found that 7% of women aged 16-59 reported to have been a victim of domestic abuse in the past year, and 5% of men.
Women with children are up to three times more likely to experience domestic abuse than childless women. Domestic abuse may commence or escalate during pregnancy but the danger does not end with the birth, and the postpartum (period just after giving birth) can be the period of greatest risk of moderate to severe violence.
Domestic abuse incidents in Wakefield increased in the 12 months to August 2013, up 16% (666 more incidents), with much of the increase due to verbal incidents (not crimes). The repeat victimisation rate remains low compared to elsewhere in West Yorkshire, but the number of repeat victims increased over the past year.
Whilst it is difficult to obtain clear information on the level of domestic abuse due to its hidden nature, its subsequent impact on children’s well-being and behaviour is becoming increasingly clear, even when domestic abuse is not directed at them personally.
It is widely accepted that there are dramatic and serious effects of children witnessing domestic abuse, which often results in behavioural issues, absenteeism, ill health, bullying, anti-social behaviour, drug and alcohol misuse, self-harm and psychosocial impacts. Growing up in a violent household is also a major factor in predicting delinquency. Children are harmed by the adversity of living with domestic abuse because they also suffer isolation from family and friends, poverty, and moving home to get away from the abuse. Children are also suffering the consequences that abuse and living in fear can have on the mother’s physical and mental health and capacity to parent.
The British Medical Association estimates that in 75-90% of incidents of domestic violence, children are in the same or next room. It is estimated that around 10% of children and young people under 16 years old will have lived with domestic violence in their families in the past 12 months. Conservative estimates indicate that 30% of children living with
22 domestic violence are themselves physically abused by the perpetrator, and also use domestic violence against their mothers.
A survey by the NSPCC in 2012 found that children who witness family violence are four times more likely to carry a weapon or seriously harm someone than children from non-violent homes. They are also three times as likely to take drugs, steal, spray graffiti or bully others than their peers, are twice as likely to get drunk or get into fights, and are five times more likely to run away from home. 56% of children from violent homes show three or more of these kinds of disruptive behaviours whilst at secondary school. The damaging impact is even seen in primary school children: 5-10 year olds from violent or abusive homes are two to four times more likely to hit, slap or push other children, pick on others or break, damage or destroy someone else's belongings.
National evidence shows that support for survivors (usually mothers) and their children is required to help to name the abuser, re-build self-esteem and focus on safety. Domestic violence compromises mothers’ mental health and mental health problems and, together with the direct effects of domestic violence, undermines parenting so that there is a need to address mothers’ mental health as well as promoting their relationships with their children.
Safe@Home Domestic Abuse Data
Safe@Home is a specialist 'one stop service' offering advice, support and information to those affected by domestic abuse in the Wakefield district. The Service is made up of a number of different agencies who work in partnership including Wakefield Council, Primary Care Trust and West Yorkshire Police.
Between April 2013 and March 2014 there were 917 referrals in to this service, of which 679 referrals were families with at least one child under 18yrs of age, the total number of children referred was 1392 (under 18yrs). Breaking this down further there were 487 children aged 5 years and under within these referrals. The waiting list for this service is currently 6 months+.
In terms of the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) picture across the referred families, this is as follows and clearly shows the overwhelming majority are white British;
• Families with a child who is 5 and under: White British 261 ; All other ethnicity 20 • Families with a child under 18 years of age: White British 508 ; All other ethnicity 31
Safe@Home does capture, where possible, presenting factors of those adults referred in to the service and this can be broken down according to whether there are children in the home who are under 18 and also 5 and under.
Table 8 Presenting factors of adults with children in the home Mental Health Child 5yrs and under 45 Child under 18 years 112 Drugs Child 5yrs and under 47
23 Child under 18 years 92 Alcohol Child 5yrs and under 40 Child under 18 years 105
The multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) is part of a co-ordinated community response to domestic abuse and over the year to March 2014 there were a total of 521 children under 18yrs of age heard at the MARAC’s (not including repeat referrals to MARAC).
Parental mental health issues Poor parental mental health is significantly associated with children’s social and emotional development and their mental health; they are twice as likely to experience a childhood psychiatric disorder. The mental health of a child is a strong predictor of their mental health in adulthood. The propensity to experience some major mental illnesses can be inherited genetically. However the effects of poor parental mental health are also transmitted environmentally through processes during pregnancy and through family relationships. For example, one in ten new mothers develops post-natal depression and prolonged post-natal depression can have a negative effect on the child’s cognitive development and ability to form social relationships. Families affected by parental mental health difficulties are at increased risk of poverty since adults with enduring mental health problems are unlikely to be in work (only 24% are in paid employment) and are more likely to live in deprived neighbourhoods. There is evidence to show that effective parental support and education, starting during pregnancy, leads to improvements in children’s resilience, educational attainment and mental well-being, as well as reducing the risk of anxiety and depression in later life.
Most parents who suffer from mental health problems are able to care well for their children. However, during episodes when their illness is active, they may struggle to provide the level of care that their children need, particularly if the family does not have much of a support network. With adequate support within the family, many children are able to cope very well and may be relatively unaffected by a parent’s mental health problem. However, some children are more vulnerable. Babies, in particular, are at risk, as parents may struggle to meet their day-to-day needs such as feeding them and keeping them clean. These parents may also find it difficult to provide the emotional and social stimulation babies need to grow and develop.
In general, parents and children want appropriate understanding and support based on the different needs of individual family members. This support needs to be sustained over time, but should also vary to reflect any change in circumstances. More specifically, for themselves, parents want: • More understanding and less stigma and discrimination in relation to mental health problems • Support in looking after their children • Practical support and services
24 • Good quality services to meet the needs of their children • Parent support groups • Child-centred provision for children to visit them in hospital • Ongoing support from services beyond periods of crisis • Continuity in key worker support • Freedom from fear that children will inevitably be removed from them
Parents with substance misuse problems The misuse of drugs and/or alcohol may adversely affect the ability of parents to attend to the emotional, physical and developmental needs of their children in both the short and long term. Parents are worried about losing their children, so confidentiality is considered to be a requirement for support services. Children often know more about their parents’ misuse than parents realise, and feel the stigma and shame of this misuse, but also fear the possibility of being separated from their parents and taken into care
Young people living with a parent who has ‘alcoholism’ have rates of psychiatric disorder at age 15 that are 2.2 to 3.9 times higher than other young people. They are twice as likely to be using alcohol and/or drugs at an earlier age. Parental alcohol misuse also raises the likelihood of having caring responsibilities at a young age and 40% of children caring for someone who misuses drugs or alcohol will experience educational difficulties. Children of parents with alcohol issues, are more likely to witness domestic violence and to experience parental relationship breakdown. Parental substance misuse has been identified as a factor in 20-60% of all child protection cases and up to 70% of children taken into care have at least one parent with a substance misuse problem.
Pregnancy can be a strong incentive for mothers to make a positive change to substance- misusing behaviour. However, fathers are statistically much less likely to seek support in mitigating or alleviating their substance misuse and can often become isolated without targeted support.
Key to tackling parental substance misuse is educating both parents and children about the impact of use, and its consequences. National research suggests that potentially successful services to support substance-misusing parents include education in parenting, specific support for substance-misusing fathers and residential programmes for parents and children. The supporting role of the extended family has also been identified as a vital means of supporting both parents and children.
Lone parents For most lone parents, lone parenthood is a stage in the lifecycle, lasting on average five years. That time constitutes a period when families are at the greatest risk of poverty,
25 and outcomes for children damaged as a result. It is estimated that a third to a half of children will spend some time in a one-parent family. Approximately 25% of children in a lone parent family are under five years old, and seven in ten are under ten years old. Nine out of ten lone parents are women and the average age for a lone parent is 38.
At any one time, less than 3% of all lone parents are teenagers and only 15% of lone mothers have never married or lived with their child's father, with around half of lone parents having had their children within marriage. Never-married lone parents tend to be younger than other lone parents and are more likely to be on benefits (although this group tends to have smaller families, take paid work and re-partner sooner).
35% of lone parents have experienced violence in their last relationship with three quarters of them sustaining physical injuries. Nearly 60% of single parents are in work, but the employment rate varies depending on the age of their youngest child: once their children are 12 or over, single parents’ employment rate is similar to, or higher than, the employment rate for mothers in couples (71% of single parents whose child is 11-15 are in work).
Table 9 Lone parent not in employment: Total (% of all lone parents)
All Lone Number not in % Area parents Employment Rate Castleford 1050.36 534 51% Normanton and 837.82 458 55% Featherstone Pontefract & Knottingley 1094.24 565 52% South East 1027.56 543 53% Wakefield Central 787.76 444 56% Wakefield North West 1769.9 739 42% Wakefield Rural 866.67 380 44% Totals 7434.31 3663 49% Source 2011 census: Population per 1000 children aged 0-17
Lone parents have higher advice needs than other family types and their problems are wide ranging and long-standing. Lone parents often use a high number of diverse sources of help but the quality of provision is perceived as variable. Different problems give rise to different advice seeking behaviour. However, large numbers of lone parents do not seek help and many lone parents struggle to find the help they need.
Young parents National research shows that the majority of teenage or young mothers bring up their children alone. Young mothers are half as likely to breastfeed, three times more likely to smoke during pregnancy and have three times the rate of post natal depression than older mothers, with a higher risk of poor mental health for three years after the birth. Young mothers often have fragile relationships with their partners and 50% of such relationships have ended by the time their baby is one year old. Those who are co-habiting
26 can have volatile relationships and chaotic lives, involving frequent moves, which makes it more difficult for services to engage them and particularly to re-engage them with learning. Young mothers are 20% more likely to have no qualifications at age 30 than older mothers, and many have missed large parts of their secondary schooling so that they face a high risk of deprivation and social exclusion in their adult life - they are 63% more likely to live in poverty. Young parents are more likely to be, or to have been, children looked after (LAC). A high proportion of young people in custody aged 15-21 are parents, including 40% of the female juvenile and young offender prison population. Children of teenage mothers are generally at increased risk of poverty, low educational attainment, poor housing and poor health, and have lower rates of economic activity in adult life. The health risks to the children of teenage parents include a much higher infant mortality rate (60% higher than older mothers) and teenage mothers are more likely to smoke during pregnancy and are less likely to breastfeed.
Many of the characteristics of young mothers are also found among young fathers. Young fathers are more likely to live in deprived areas, to be unemployed and to be in receipt of benefits. Around 20% of young fathers have never lived with their child, compared with 6% of older fathers.
Young mothers who are struggling with money, health and housing problems are not able to engage with information about education, employment and training (EET) until they have dealt with more fundamental problems in their lives. A return to EET is only possible if all the appropriate forms of support are in place for the young mothers. Support needs to be intensive and ongoing, and also continue once they have returned to learning.
The Office of National Statistics published figures for Wakefield in 2009, 2010 and 2011 that show numbers of live births with the age of the mother and the area of their usual residence.
Table 10 The number of live births to mothers under 20 in Wakefield Number of Live Births to Mothers under 20yrs old in Wakefield District (area of usual residence) 2009 360 2010 326 2011 303
Current data tells us that in 2012/13 there were 248 live births to mothers under 20 years old so there is a clear trend that this is reducing.
The table below shows the numbers of first and second deliveries to mothers under the age of 20 across Wakefield district. The data shows a reduction in the number of first time deliveries to mothers under the age of 20 of approximately 26% from 2008 to 2011. The marked downward trend averages 27 fewer deliveries a year. This trend, if sustained, projects to 239 deliveries in 2012 and 212 in 2013.
27 Table 11 The number of first and second deliveries to mothers under the age of 20 in Wakefield district. Calendar Year of 1 st First time Second Total delivery delivery delivery Deliveries 2008 358 48 407 2009 327 39 368 2010 289 40 329 2011 266 35 303 The caveat states: “Data covers deliveries under the age of 20, within the years 2008-2011. The analysis uses hospital HRG codes, rather than official birth event statistics. As such, this will not accurately count multiple births (twins, triplets, etc.), nor separate multiple births that occur within the same year. Also, deliveries within prisons, the Angle Lodge facility and home births will also not be recorded. Due to the way in which the query is staggered across multiple years, there is a small possibility that 18/19 year old mothers in 2008 or 2009 had a delivery prior to April 2006.”
Local Teenage Conception Rates
The under-18 conception rates published in 2012 were the lowest since 1969 at 27.7 conceptions per 1000 women. In terms of estimated numbers this equated to 27,834, a reduction of 10% on the 2011 figure of 31,051. There was a similar reduction in respect of conceptions at under-16 moving from 5,991 to 5432.
Wakefield still remains higher than the national averages with 33.7 (197) conceptions per 1000 women under-18 in 2012; however this still represents a reduction locally from 39.4 (240) per 1000 in 2010 and 38.0 (228) in 2011.
The DFE published teenage conception statistics for 2010 show that in Wakefield district there were 240 conceptions of under 18’s and 45% of those led to abortion which equates to 132 births and 108 abortions. The abortion rate in Wakefield is an average figure when compared with the national picture.
Support for fathers According to the 2011 Census, there are 6,632 families in Wakefield with one dependent child aged 0-4, plus 5,767 families with two children where the youngest is aged 0-4 and 3,130 families with three or more children where the youngest is aged 0-4. This would imply that there are around 15,529 fathers with children aged 0-4, although not all of them are necessarily involved in their children’s lives.
The table below shows the number of female and male lone parents that were registered and where there has been a contact (seen) in Wakefield Children’s Centres across 2013/14 each quarter. The figures show increases in registration across both female and male lone parents, however the numbers of ”seen” cases remains well below 50% for each quarter.
Table 12 Lone Parent Registered and Seen 2013/14 Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
28 Registered & registered seen registered seen registered seen registered seen Seen Lone Parent 1744 673 1771 757 1814 657 1894 656 Female Lone Parent 45 11 50 23 55 17 56 16 Male Source: estart
Since fathers’ circumstances and experiences tend to differ substantially from those of mothers, gender differentiated approaches in parenting support are needed. Fathers usually work longer hours than mothers, experience greater cultural pressure to be breadwinners, are more likely to share their parenting with other men and may live separately from some or all of their children. As a result of these differences, fathers tend to feel less confident than mothers as carers, to have had less experience with children, to be less knowledgeable about child development and sources of parenting support, and to be less likely to believe that parenting skills can be usefully taught. Most experience isolation in parenting, with some (e.g. young fathers) particularly excluded. Consequently some lone parents deliberately avoid services.
Parents with multiple births The incidence of multiple births has risen in the last 30 years. In 2009, 16 women per 1,000 giving birth in England and Wales had multiple births compared with 10 per 1,000 in 1980. This rising multiple birth rate is due mainly to increasing use of assisted reproduction techniques, including IVF. Up to 24% of successful IVF procedures result in multiple pregnancies. Multiple births currently account for 3% of live births.
Multiple birth babies are very demanding and often parents' ability to cope is dramatically reduced by the problems that accompany having twins, triplets or more. Mothers may need extra pre-natal care and monitoring. Babies are often born earlier, or smaller than singleton babies, and are therefore more vulnerable. Coping with two or more newborn babies can seem an overwhelming task, and parents may need support with caring for the babies. Multiples may experience language delay, behavioural disorders, excessive rivalry or dependency.
Parents raising twins face a number of differences compared to those having a singleton child. There are differences in the way that parents of twins spend their time, as two children will demand more time than one. Families with twins or triplets were also more likely to report feelings of tiredness, and lower levels of confidence and competence in looking after their children. Families with multiple births face an extra burden of financial hardship, and mothers find it harder return to work, with many reporting that the cost of childcare for twins or triplets means that their families would lose even more money if they returned to work sooner.
Children and parents with a disability There were 112 children aged under 5 on the Wakefield Register of Children with a diagnosed Disability in Q4 2013/14.
29 The table below shows the number of registered disabled children and disabled parents that were seen in Wakefield Children’s Centres in 2013/14 each quarter. The number of registered children with disabilities is higher than the figure given above because the registration forms ask the parent or carer whether they consider their children to have a disability.
Table 13 Disabled Children and Disabled Parents registered and Seen 2013/14 Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Registered & Seen Registered Seen Registered Seen Registered Seen Registered Seen Disabled Children 141 66 136 72 140 61 157 73 Disabled Parents 130 55 130 68 135 63 140 17 Source: estart
Families with multiple problems An estimated 2% of families experience multiple problems, which put children at a higher risk of adverse outcomes. There is a greater concentration of families with multiple problems in deprived areas, although even in the most deprived areas only one in twenty families experience five or more of the basket of disadvantages. Families living in social housing, families where the mother’s main language is not English, lone parent families and families with a young mother all face a higher than average risk of experiencing multiple problems.
The 2012 report ‘In the eye of the storm: Britain’s forgotten children and families’ estimates there will be a substantial increase in the number of vulnerable families with children between 2010 and 2015 as a result of changes in tax and benefits, spending cuts and the ongoing effects of the economic downturn. It is estimated that nationally the number of families with five or more vulnerabilities will increase from 130,000 to 150,000 (up by 14%) while the number of children living in families with five or more vulnerabilities will rise by 54,000 to 365,000, an increase of around 17%. Changes to the tax and benefits systems are expected to have a larger impact on families with a greater number of vulnerabilities as they depend to a greater extent on public services than other families - the children in these families will also be affected by cuts to provision. It is estimated that families with five or more vulnerabilities will lose approximately £3,000 per year by 2015, representing a decrease in total living standards of around 7%.
Individual parent-based risk factors for experiencing multiple disadvantages are: • Poverty • Debt • Worklessness • Lack of education and skills • Bad housing • Parental imprisonment • Parents who engage in anti-social behaviour
30 • Parental problem drug use (including maternal drug use) • Poor parental health or disability • Poor parental mental health • Relationship conflict and breakdown • Domestic violence
Targeted Youth Support Services Some initial work has been undertaken to identify existing patterns amongst young people (and where appropriate their families) in terms of potential difficulties, including those involving alcohol and substance misuse. A review of all TYS referrals between October 2013 and March 2014 and YOT interventions over the same period indicated that 23% of all contact has been with young people in the Wakefield Central area. Indeed, just 3 areas (Wakefield Central, Castleford and Normanton and Featherstone account for 55% of all referrals and interventions (yet they account for only 40% of young people population).
Table 14 YOT/TYS Interventions and ASB incidents ASB youth- related incidents per YOT/TYS 1,000 Interventions population Castleford 17% 13.5 Normanton and 15% 19.7 Featherstone Pontefract & 11% 15.4 Knottingley South East 14% 14.1 Wakefield 23% 18.1 Central Wakefield 12% 10.5 North West Wakefield 7% 8.6 Rural Source: ASB figures from Wakefield Observatory seven Area Profiles. YOT/TYS interventions from Wakefield Youth Service Oct 13 to March 14.
The review indicated the highest proportion is with the 14 – 16yr age bracket (47% of all referrals and interventions) although a discussion around school referrals, which make up one third of TYS referrals, indicated that schools have lower referral thresholds than other agencies and this may be impacting on the overall age results shown below.
Health and Well-Being
31 Child Poverty There is widespread consensus that the early years in a child’s life (aged 0-5 and especially the first 22 months) have a strong impact on future health, attainment and social/emotional development.
The factors that affect children’s health generally are social disadvantage, poverty and poor access to education and other services. Socially disadvantaged groups suffer poorer physical health and lower life-expectancy than the more advantaged, have higher incidence and prevalence of acute and chronic illness, and are more likely to smoke and have a poor diet. Children from poorer backgrounds suffer higher rates of accidental injury, infections, failure to thrive, general ill health, anaemia, dental cavities and teenage pregnancy. In addition, poorer families are less likely to have access to, and make appropriate use of, health services than those from more advantaged circumstances, and they are less likely to benefit from health promotion services and advice.
Poor socio-economic circumstances may have lasting effects on both mental and physical health and development. Low birth weight, for example, which is more common among poorer families, is associated with higher rates of adult morbidity and age-specific mortality. It is a good indicator of a newborn's chances for survival, growth, long-term health and psychosocial development.
Poverty can be highly damaging, particularly if experienced for longer periods. Poverty can increase the likelihood of other parental problems such as unemployment, poor access to services, poor health and housing and financial exclusion. Poverty also poses risks for poor outcomes over the longer term that can persist into adulthood and pass from one generation to the next.
Research indicates that child poverty operates through its impact on the environment in which children grow up. This includes opportunities for participating fully in society, poorer access to services and other disadvantages such as poorer quality housing and neighbourhoods or lower levels of financial assets, as well as growing up with lower aspirations.
Children who live in poverty are more likely to have a shorter life expectancy and to have worse health outcomes, including experiencing mental health difficulties, obesity, alcohol misuse and higher rates of teenage pregnancy.
Across the district there are approximately 13,740 children aged under-16 (23% of this age group) living in households where at least one parent or guardian is claiming out-of-work benefits.
Although this is around 200 fewer children than in 2010, it remains higher than the national rate of 19%. Furthermore, there are wide variations within the district. At the individual neighbourhood level there are some parts of the district where the rate is over 50%.
Recognised barriers to employment (and education/training) include the lack of affordable childcare, far too few family-friendly employers/flexible working opportunities, and parent
32 and child health problems. In light of the correlations between poverty and worklessness, the support needs of this group of parents are very similar to those of parents living in poverty.
The table below shows the percentage of people and children living in the 10% most deprived areas in Wakefield.
Table 15 Table of people and children living in 10% most deprived areas of Wakefield. IMD - % of IMD - % of people living in children neighbourhoods living amongst the amongst the top 10% most 10% most deprived in deprived in England Wakefield Castleford 31% 40% Normanton and Featherstone 9% 10% Pontefract and Knottingley 10% 11% South East 12% 30% Wakefield Central 28% 27% Wakefield North West 0% 0% Wakefield Rural 3% 15% Source: Wakefield Observatory – IMD data 2010 and Children’s Centre SOA data updated using birth data supplied by MYHT as at 1/9/2013
While some children who grow up in low-income households will go on to achieve their potential, many others will not. Poverty places strains on family life and excludes children from the everyday activities of their peers.
Many children experiencing poverty have limited opportunities to play safely and often live in overcrowded and inadequate housing, eat less nutritious food, suffer more accidents and poor health outcomes and achieve lower levels of educational attainment which may result in poorly paid, low skilled employment in adulthood, leading to an intergenerational cycle of poverty.
33 Table 16 The number and percentage of out of work benefit claimant households with children aged 0-15 in 2012, and the number and percentage of households with dependent children where there is no adult in employment in 2011 Children (0-15) living in Out- Households with dependent children of-work Benefit Claimant where no adults in employment (% of Households (% of children 0- households with dependent children) 15) (May 2012) (2011) Castleford 28.2% (2270 Households) 18.0% (947 Households) Normanton and Featherstone 23.4% (1600 Households) 15.4% (732 Households) Pontefract and Knottingley 26.1% (2110 Households) 17.3% (956 Households) South East 25.4% (2395 Households) 17.6% (1111 Households) Wakefield Central 30.7% (2760 Households) 21.7% (1186 Households) Wakefield North West 12.0% (1330 Households) 8.6% (669 Households) Wakefield Rural 15.4% (1215 Households) 11.6% (629 Households) Source: Wakefield Observatory – Seven area profiles
Castleford and Wakefield Central areas show significantly higher levels of need. Wakefield Rural and Wakefield North West have the lowest levels of need across both data sets.
Table 17 Table showing further benefits data Working- age DWP Working-age Job Seekers benefit DWP benefit Allowance Job Seekers claimants, claimants, claimants - % Allowance Disabled Incapacity of area claimants - (%) (Q03 Benefits (%) population no. in area 2013) (Q03 2013) Castleford 4.0% 1,091 1.50% 9.90% Normanton and Featherstone 3.5% 825 1.60% 8.40% Pontefract and Knottingley 3.7% 1,047 1.50% 8.80% South East 2.8% 891 1.80% 10.90% Wakefield Central 6.1% 1,789 1.40% 9% Wakefield North West 2.3% 928 1.10% 5.10% Wakefield Rural 2.7% 792 1.20% 5.30% Source: Wakefield Observatory – Seven area profiles
34 Pregnancy It is not possible to say how many women across the district are pregnant during a 12 month period, but it is possible to use actual birth statistics as an indication. Within Wakefield there were 4210 live births in 2012.
Research from the National Childbirth Trust in 2000 supports the importance for pregnant women of community-based care, continuity of carer, and contact with a small number of health professionals. It suggests that there is a high demand for information about pregnancy, birth and postnatal issues. First time and younger mothers are particularly keen to have greater access to information, and first time mothers are most likely to believe that they have been provided with too little information. During pregnancy women need consistent provision of detailed information on a range of key topics including what to expect during pregnancy care, maternity care service choices, what to expected with instrumental and caesarean deliveries, benefits and rights, baby feeding and postnatal topics. Women need information on their social and emotional experiences and needs as well as more clinical information.
National research shows that the children of mothers who smoke are more likely to be of low birth weight than children of non-smoking mothers. Low birth weight is an enduring aspect of childhood morbidity, a major factor in infant mortality and has serious consequences for health in later life. Smoking during pregnancy is a significant problem in Wakefield, as can be seen from the graph below.
Figure 5 Smoking in Pregnancy 30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00% Wakefield England 10.00% Yorkshire and Humber 5.00%
0.00%
The figures show that Wakefield has been substantially higher than both the national and regional figures in terms of smoking in pregnancy, for the last seven years consecutively. For 2012/13 Wakefield actually saw a rise in the figure from 2011/12, and has actually struggled to consistently reduce year on year. This is set against a national picture where the decrease is sustained, albeit only slightly. The latest rise has resulted in a widening of the gap between Wakefield and both Yorkshire & Humber and England average.
35
Low birth weight (less than 2.5kg), which is more common among poorer families, is associated with higher rates of adult morbidity and age- specific mortality. It is a good indicator of a newborn's chances for survival, growth, long- term health and psychosocial development. For the five years 2007-2011, the Wakefield Central area had the highest incidence of low birth weight with 9.20% of all live births.
The Child and Maternal Health Observatory (ChiMat) reports that in 2012 Wakefield had a low birth weight rate of 6.8% against an England average of 7.3%
Table 18 Low birth weight babies by area 2007-2011 Area Low Birth Weight Babies (% of Live Births, 5 years) (2007- 2011) Castleford 9.00% Normanton and Featherstone 7.80% Pontefract and Knottingley 8.20% South East 7.40% Wakefield Central 9.20% Wakefield North West 7.20% Wakefield Rural 7.00% Source: Wakefield Observatory: Seven Area Profiles
Breast milk is considered to be the best form of nutrition for infants and breast-fed babies are five times less likely to be admitted to hospital with common infections, such as gastroenteritis, during their first year of life. Breastfeeding initiation rates in the UK remain relatively low compared to other countries, particularly among women in lower income groups.
Across the district as a whole in 2012/13, only 56% of mothers in Wakefield were initiating breastfeeding at birth, compared to 74% of mothers across England (ChiMat).
As can be seen from the table below the area with the best sustained breastfeeding rate is Wakefield North West, however there is a large difference between that and the lowest area which is Pontefract and Knottingley at only 26.2%. Such disparity means the district average stood at 32.9% in 2011 against an England average of 46.9%. The most current data (2013) at district level shows very little improvement with the figure standing at 35.4%.
36 Table 19 Breastfeeding rates by area in 2011 Breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks (%) (2011) Castleford 27.5 Normanton & 35.1 Featherstone Pontefract & 26.2 Knottingley South East 31.4 Wakefield Central 42.9 Wakefield North 45.7 West Wakefield Rural 39.3 District Average 32.9 National Average 46.9 Source: Wakefield Observatory: Seven Area Profiles and Mid Yorks NHS Trust
Childhood Immunisations
There are some diseases that can kill children or cause lasting damage to their health. Sometimes a child's system needs help to fight those diseases. Immunisation - also called 'vaccination' provides that help. Immunisation prepares our bodies to fight serious infections that we may come in contact with in the future. Because immunisation is so successful, it is now rare for children to get serious diseases like diphtheria, polio or tetanus. Measles and pertussis (whooping cough) are also becoming less common. However, if children are not immunised against these diseases, they will come back again. MMR is the combined vaccine to prevent measles, mumps and rubella, all of which are diseases with serious complications. There has been some controversy about the MMR vaccine in recent years, which has resulted in a decrease in the number of children being vaccinated. World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations are that at least 95% of children receive a first dose of a mumps-containing vaccine at age 12-18 months; and that at least 95% receive a measles vaccine by two years of age.
Table 20 Immunisation rates within Wakefield Dtap/IPV/Hib Vaccination (Wakefield) 2012/13 97.7% Dtap/IPV/Hib Vaccination (England average) 2012/13 96.3% Immunised 1st MMR at 2 years (Wakefield) 2012/13 94.8% Immunised 1st MMR at 2 years (England average) 2012/13 92.3% Source: CHIMAT Wakefield Child Health Profile 2013
In both cases it can be seen that Wakefield outperforms the England average, quite considerably so for the MMR figure.
Childhood Obesity Childhood obesity is a complex public health issue that is a growing threat to children’s health. Being overweight or obese increase the risk of a wide range of diseases and
37 illnesses, including coronary heart disease and stroke, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, osteoarthritis and cancer. Obesity reduces life expectancy on average by 11 years. Adult obesity is expected to rise, with about 41% of men and 36% of women (aged 20 to 65) predicted to be obese by 2020. England has seen a significant rise in child obesity, with 9% of Reception pupils and 19% of Year 6 pupils now measured as obese. There are proportionally more girls in both year groups who are obese, while by ethnic group those from a Black or Black British background are more likely to be obese.
In Wakefield, the percentage of children with excess weight aged 4-5 was 9.4% in 2012/13. At age 10-11 this was 20.1%. The reception year rate is roughly in line with the England average which stood at 9.3% for the same period. There is a slightly larger gap for those at year 6 where the England average is 18.9%, however given the span across the country Wakefield is still in line at 20.1% in 2012/2013.
The Government Office for Science’s Foresight programme(2007) has suggested that action to prevent obesity should be best focused in five main policy areas: to promote children’s health: to promote healthy food: to build physical activity into people’s lives: to support health at work and provide incentives more widely to promote health: and to provide effective treatment and support when people become overweight or obese.
With regard to children and young people, this means: • Encouraging as many mothers to breastfeed as possible • Helping families to become knowledgeable and confident about the healthy weaning and feeding of their young children • As children grow, giving parents the knowledge and confidence to ensure that their children eat healthily and are active and fit • Making all schools into healthy schools • Giving support to parents who need extra help through children’s centres, health services and their local communities
The proportion of pupils walking to school has increased in recent years, and lifts to school by car have decreased. Cycling is not common, with just 0.8% of pupils using this type of transport.
Reducing Hospital Admissions There is no marked trend in the numbers of children killed or seriously injured on the district’s roads in recent years. In 2012 there were 17 children killed or seriously injured, down from 24 the previous year. Of those injured in 2012, 9 were pedestrians and 4 were riding bicycles. The district rate of children killed or seriously injured was slightly lower than the regional average.
In respect of crude rates of emergency admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in children. The figure for 2011/12 was 161.5 per 10,000 resident population aged 0- 14. For those aged 15-24 the figure was slightly higher at 264.7. Data taken from Wakefield Child Health Profile also has hospital admissions caused by injuries in children 0-14 years old
38 and this illustrates that in Wakefield in 2012/13 the figure stood at 122.5 per 10,000 population which is higher than the England average of 103.8 although still roughly in line against all authorities. Current Early Help Provision
Troubled Families The term ‘Troubled families’ was coined to refer to those families that have problems and cause problems to the community around them, putting high costs on the public sector. Therefore, the government is committed to working with local authorities and their partners to help 120,000 troubled families in England turn their lives around by 2015 which will both help to ensure the children in these families have the chance of a better life, and at the same time bring down the cost to the taxpayer.
Within the Wakefield District, the government estimated that there were around 930 troubled families. By March 2014 Wakefield Troubled Families programme had successfully ‘turned around’ all of these families allocated by the Dept. for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), a year ahead of the initial programme end date. This has meant that Wakefield MDC has been able to ‘draw’ down all available monies from DCLG, to ensure continued work with vulnerable families across the District.
Building on the work of the Troubled Families programme a pilot was started in the south east of the district at the end of 2013, due in part to there being a strong integrated approach in the area as well as a large number of identified ‘troubled families’. This has already evidenced real benefits to service delivery by supporting the current public sector workforce to effectively work together to meet the ‘shared vision’. This has resulted in a workforce which is accountable to each other and our (often shared) service users. Services are delivered locally, without duplication creating capacity for innovation and creativity. By establishing an ‘integrated area team’ to support delivery to households, identified by the partnership, using a whole family approach where there is evidence of disproportionate service use, universal services have additional capacity to provide high quality earlier support.
Despite being very early into delivery the performance framework evidences real benefits to the approach. The qualitative information collected evidences a move toward effective partnership interventions providing early intervention to improve outcomes and reduce service demand. The partnership evaluation indicates optimism and belief that integrated service delivery is a viable solution to enable the workforce to provide high quality services in the financial climate. The ultimate benefits of this integrated approach to providing public services will be realised in years to come as the impact of the shift to earlier intervention reduces service demand and costs.
Children’s Centres In 2011, the Government redefined the core purpose of Children’s Centres as being to improve outcomes for young children and their families, especially the most disadvantaged,
39 in order to reduce inequalities in child development and school readiness, also to improve parenting skills and child and family health.
Children’s centres offer a wide range of services for families and others caring for children under five. Each children’s centre is different, offering a variety of services according to the needs of local families. Activities are delivered from a main site, a delivery site, or through a range of outreach venues. All children’s centres work closely with health, schools, GPs and other local service providers. Services include: • Information and advice on childcare and early learning provision • Health services including pre- and postnatal support • Parent / carer groups, including dads’ and grandparent groups • Access to children’s communication and early language support • links to Jobcentre Plus • Family support services
There are currently 23 children’s centres in Wakefield, all of which are designated Main Sites.
Access to services
As at March 31 st 2014 there were 17,347 children under five registered with Wakefield Children’s Centres representing about 85% of all children under five. Registration rates vary across the district from 76% to 100%. Not all children that are registered to a centre go on to access services.
Registration rates are high within the district but not enough families are using Children’s Centres or accessing services on a regular basis. There have been small improvements in participation rates over the last three years but 16 out of 23 centres are currently not reaching the benchmark of Ofsted’s expected performance in terms of engaging at least 65% of the children living in their reach areas at least once (registered seen) .
Table 21 Reach, Registered Seen 2010-2014 (across all Children’s Centres) Number % of Reach Number % of Reach Year Reach Registered Registered Seen Once Seen Once 2010/11 20643 14486 70% 10,713 52% 2011/12 20999 16430 78% 11,848 56% 2012/13 20842 17522 84% 12,025 58% 2013/14 20250 17347 85% 13,683 68% (Source: estart) NB. There are additional children seen that live outside of the Wakefield area that are not counted in this table
40 Figure 6 Reach, Registered, Seen 2010-2014 25000
20000
15000 Reach Number Registered 10000 Number Seen Once
5000
0 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Table 22 Children Seen Once by Area in 2013/14 Total Number of Percentage Number of Percentage Percentage Number of children 0-5 of children 0- children seen of total of registered children 0-5 registered 5 registered at a number of number of in the area with a with a Children's children children seen (Reach as at children’s children’s Centre (reach) seen ata a 1/9/13) centre (as at centre (as at (2013/2014) at a children’s 31/3/14) 31/3/14) children’s centre centre (2013/2014) (2013/2014) Castleford 3158 2794 88.47% 1583 50.13% 56.66% Normanton 66.21% and 2429 2282 93.95% 1511 62.21% Featherstone Pontefract 2367 58.94% and 2784 85.02% 1395 50.11% Knottingley South East 3013 2575 85.46% 1176 58.94% 68.97% Wakefield 2311 56.30% Central 2886 80.08% 1301 45.08% Wakefield 3764 3150 83.69% 2057 54.65% 65.30% North West Wakefield 1868 53.80% Rural 2275 82.11% 1005 44.18% District Total 20,309 17,347 85.42% 10,628 52.33% 61.27% (Source: estart)
NB: There is a difference between the total number seen once per area and the District figure given in the table above. This is due to children that are seen in a different Children’s Centre to where they live.
41 Table 23 The number and percentage of children living within the 10% and 30% most deprived areas who did not attend a Children’s Centre over the year to April 2014 2013/14 Non-Attendance % of Reach (number) Non- Attendance 10% Most Deprived 891 23.14% 30% Most Deprived 2679 32.06%
Table 23 clearly illustrates that nearly a third of those from the 30% most deprived areas did not attend at all.
Family Support within Children’s Centres
Family Support is targeted at vulnerable families who would be unlikely to access Children’s Centre services, whose children may not meet their developmental milestones without more intensive intervention. The main issues Children’s Centres work with in their family support role are:
• Parental mental ill-health including PND • Domestic abuse and relationship difficulties • Substance misuse • Behaviour management problems • General parenting difficulties such as lack of routines, debt management, poverty, low level neglect
The figures below show there are low numbers of family support cases at CiN, CP and LAC. In addition to Family Support, Children’s Centres will be offering other services to these children but it is not currently possibly to monitor take up of services by this population group.
42 Figure 7 Children’s Centre Family Support Cases at CiN on 31 st March 2014 compared to Open CiN Cases living in Reach on 31 st March 2014 250 200 150 100 50 CiN Children Open Cases living in reach 0 CiN Family Support Cases
Source: Open Cases from Care Director. Children’s Centre Caseloads from Wakefield Children’s Centres.
Figure 8 Children’s Centre Family Support Cases at CP on 31 st march 2014 compared to Open CiN Cases living in Reach on 31 st March 2014
60 50 40 30 20 10 Children on CP Plan living in reach 0 CP Family Support Cases
Source: Open Cases from Care Director. Children’s Centre Caseloads from Wakefield Children’s Centres.
43 Figure 9 Children’s Centre Family Support Cases for LAC on 31 st March 2014 compared to Looked After Children placed in Reach on 31 st March 2014 30 25 20 15 10 5 Looked After 0 Children Placed in reach
LAC Family Support Cases
Source: Open Cases from Care Director. Children’s Centre Caseloads from Wakefield Children’s Centres.
Two Year Old Offer
Children’s Centres have a role in supporting vulnerable families to access the two year old offer if they are eligible to receive this offer. Some families need more encouragement than others to take up the offer, for example, if they’ve never left their child in childcare before. Children’s Centres staff can help explain the benefits and sometimes help arrange visits to show families what is on offer; they can also support families to access the offer. When Ofsted inspect Children’s Centres part of their assessment will be around how well the centre supports families to take up the two year old offer.
44 Table 24 The take up of the two year old offer by School term in each ward in Wakefield.
Spring Summer Autumn Spring 2 Year Old Offer Term 2013 Term 2013 Term 2013 Term 2014 WARD % of % of % of % of eligible eligible eligible eligible children children children children taking up taking up taking up taking up offer offer offer offer Ackworth 46% 94% 82% 90% Airedale 31% 45% 71% 91% Altofts & Whitwood 66% 112% 90% 112% Castleford Central & 34% 64% 77% 79% Glasshoughton Crofton Ryhill & Walton 26% 69% 42% 33% Featherstone 62% 95% 61% 70% Hemsworth 43% 71% 64% 70% Horbury & South Ossett 46% 52% 77% 92% Knottingley 80% 105% 80% 78% Normanton 61% 82% 81% 81% Ossett 44% 43% 54% 96% Pontefract North 33% 61% 62% 69% Pontefract South 50% 88% 91% 83% South Elmsall & South Kirkby 73% 98% 70% 102% Stanley & Outwood East 81% 107% 93% 141% Wakefield East 63% 83% 73% 82% Wakefield North 33% 39% 65% 74% Wakefield Rural 57% 78% 63% 64% Wakefield South 57% 70% 60% 86% Wakefield West 61% 96% 83% 88% Wrenthorpe & Outwood West 44% 113% 85% 100% Totals 52% 77% 73% 83% Source: Wakefield Childcare and Market Development Team.
Early Years Foundation Stage Profile Currently, 57% of Wakefield pupils achieve expected levels in Foundation Stage as at 2013. A new Foundation Stage profile was introduced in 2013 and comparisons cannot be made to previous year’s results because of changes to how achievement levels are measured.
The table below show the breakdown of EYFS results by Area. It shows the percentage of children who reached a good level of development at Early Years Foundation Stage 2013.
45 Table 25 Early Years Foundation Stage Profile Results 2013 EYFS Results Cohort figure 2013 2013 Castleford 57% 582 Normanton and 55% 438 Featherstone Pontefract and Knottingley 57% 571 South East 57% 565 Wakefield Central 47% 511 Wakefield North West 66% 888 Wakefield Rural 55% 370
The Benefits of Early Intervention The need for prevention, and thus early identification of risk, is key. Prevention strategies aim to identify potential issues, preferably before they start to occur. National and international evidence shows that early intervention clearly works when it is an appropriate intervention, applied well, following timely identification of a problem; and the earlier the better to secure maximum impact and greatest long term sustainability (both as early in the child’s life as possible and/or as soon as possible after a difficulty becomes apparent).
There is widespread consensus that the early years in a child’s life (aged 0-5 and especially the first 22 months) have a strong impact on future health, attainment and social/emotional development. During these years, the greatest influence are parents and family, e.g. through nutrition, emotional warmth and providing development opportunities, but poverty is an important inhibiting factor as well.
Neglect or abuse in early childhood can do permanent damage to children’s emotional development. Primary school age presents parents and stakeholders with the opportunity to support the development of resilience. By the time secondary school age is reached, focus tends to be increasingly on attainment and avoiding poor attendance as well as addressing (mental) well-being issues and risk behaviours as they arise.
The vast majority of parents want the best for their children and in most families parents are a source of strength, support and resilience. Some disadvantaged families who face the most adverse of circumstances manage to beat the odds and break the cycle of disadvantage. Protective factors for families that shield children from negative influences are: • Authoritative and positive parenting combined with a warm, affectionate bond of attachment between a child and its parents from infancy. Conversely, a harsh or inconsistent parenting style is a key risk factor • Positive relationships between teenagers and their parents can protect against a number of poor outcomes, including low educational attainment, poor mental health, low self-esteem, substance misuse, youth offending and homelessness
46 • Educational attainment is a key protective factor for children, and the level of parental interest in a child’s education is extremely important. When a child is very young, parental involvement plays a key role in ensuring cognitive development, literacy and numeracy skills. At primary level, differences in parental involvement in learning can have a very significant impact on attainment and this impact remains very strong into adolescence • Encouraging the child or young person to aim high, and celebrating achievements, are both very powerful motivators for children of secondary school age • Good parenting and strong family relationships can help to build social and emotional skills, which are important determinants of a host of outcomes including raising attainment, avoiding teenage motherhood and preventing involvement in crime • Informal support can act as a strong protective factor in times of difficulty and reaching out to wider family members can have positive outcomes and avoid the need for the child to be taken into care
Services to support vulnerable children and families with specific needs National research and guidance has identified some of the key characteristics of effectively configured services for vulnerable children, young people and families. Certain factors are common to all groups of vulnerable children and young people. These include:
• Services are accessible to children, young people and families in their localities, and within a range of settings • The balance of provision should be focused towards early identification and prevention, with support provided well before children reach crisis point • Services are holistic, multi-disciplinary and well-co-ordinated between all agencies involved, including the voluntary sector • There is a common assessment process and good information sharing between agencies • Training in the identification and requirements of children and young people with additional needs for all staff working in specialist and mainstream settings • There is a lead or key practitioner role to ensure good case co- ordination • Services are evidence-based, regularly monitored, evaluated and reviewed, with the findings used to improve services • Listening to children/young people and their families and involving them in the planning and delivery of provision • Using effective management information to understand the characteristics of children/young people and plan provision • Services are acceptable: for example, parenting advice linked with other advisory services (such as employment and child care), one stop shops that are both welcoming and helpful for older children and young people • Services are as non-stigmatising as they can be. Generally, targeted services should be embedded in more open-access services, so that a more graduated response can be provided • Services include a particular focus on key transition points in a child’s life, such as the change from primary to secondary education, transition from child to adult services for young people with disabilities
47 • There is a whole-child/young person and whole-family approach that is as enabling and empowering as possible • There are good links with relevant adult services (in particular mental health or drug and alcohol services) so that these services take account of the developmental needs of the child or young person. Transition planning is also robust • Services are evidence-based, grounded in robust evaluation of what works. Where possible, new services should be built on existing local networks and services that are already working well • Services are sustainable, with support continuing for as long as is needed • There is an effective assessment process that is child-centred; rooted in child development; ensures equality of opportunity; involves working with children and families; builds on strengths as well as identifies difficulties; is inter-agency in its approach (both to assessment and to the provision of services); is a continuing process and not a single event; is carried out in parallel with other action and provision of services; and focuses on desired outcomes
The Local Offer for Integrated Early Help As already stated we cannot continue to deliver services in the way we have in the past, if we are to improve outcomes for children, young people and families. We have, however, made significant progress in delivering a number of services and interventions and undertaken extensive work to help us better understand the situation and the challenges we face including:
• The Journey of Child Review • Troubled Families and South East Pilot • Common Assessment Framework • Re-designed Front Door • CiN Audit
A new Way of Working As outlined in the Integrated Early Help Hubs section , the concept of an Integrated Early Help Offer delivered through seven Locality Integrated Early Help Hubs has already been developed and captured in ‘The Children’s Centres – Direction of Travel’ report to Leaders Strategy in April 2014. This report outlined a vision of an Integrated Early Help Offer, identifying Children’s Centre services as being a key element of this offer.
The Hubs will be operated from suitable, accessible, community based facilities and will consist of multidisciplinary teams each led and managed by a locality manager. Some services will be co-located and others will form a wider virtual team. All interventions will be focused on improving outcomes for families experiencing difficulties, which will have a positive impact on the communities they live in. Families will be able to access a co- ordinated early help offer through a service that is personalised, multi-agency and evidences based, utilising a whole family approach with a specific focus on achieving positive outcomes.
48 Teams will contribute fully to area based working arrangements and will collaborate, be co- located, and draw up shared plans with other area based services e.g. NPTs, Health Services, Neighbourhood Coordinators and the Voluntary and Community Sector.
The Integrated Early Help Hubs will work to address the following priorities: • Increasing the number of children who are school ready • Improving school attendance • Reducing incidences of domestic violence • Reducing the number of children in need or subject to child protection plans • Reducing the number of 'troubled' families (as defined by DCLG) • Increasing the use of CAF and CAF plans by the range of partners • Reducing current gaps in educational achievement • Improving educational attainment • Increasing social capital and community capacity • Increase parenting capacity • Reducing youth crime, anti-social behaviour, NEET and alcohol and substance misuse • Reducing worklessness
Service delivery within the Hubs will be planned, organised and underpinned by the following principles: • Assessments and support plans will be utilised within a strengths based whole family approach • Assessment and support plans will identify a lead professional and adopt a ‘team around the family’ approach to coordinated interventions • Provision and planning of Early Help resources will be based on the local evidence base and profile of need • Early Help Hubs will contribute to building social capital and strengthening communities in conjunction with the Communities Directorate • Our ambition is that Hubs will operate pooled and community budget arrangements. This gives us license to flex resources over time if we choose to • Hubs will be based in locations across the district (work is ongoing with council colleagues and partners to identify suitable premises)
Early Help Hubs will be made up of staff either from or linked to, the following service delivery areas and teams: • Children’s Centres • Targeted Youth Support Services • Troubled Families • Early Intervention Team including the CAF Coordination Team • Intensive Support Team • Positive Activities • Elements of Children’s Social Care • Education Support Services • Street Scene • Neighbourhood Policing Teams • Adult Health and Communities
49
As part of wider developments to remodel and reconfigure services within the district, it is envisaged that the following staff teams will also work as part of Early Help Hubs: • Health Visiting Teams • School Nursing Teams • Family Nurse Partnership
The Children’s Centre Data Analysis Children’s Centre Data Analysis has been completed to examine demand and supply that supports the broader needs assessment undertaken. This has been used as part of the evidence to inform the decision making to remodel Wakefield Children’s Centres as part of an Integrated Early Help Offer.
As they are currently configured Wakefield Children’s Centres serve different sized populations. The size of reach area varies from between 550 to 1206 children aged under 5. Children’s Centre reach areas do not always align with ward boundaries or the seven neighbourhood area boundaries. For the purposes of this exercise the location of a Children’s Centre building was used to determine which area it falls within. This means that when any changes are implemented a re-drawing of boundaries will need to take place.
To quantify and compare the needs of different reach areas, a number of indicators were chosen that together provide a comprehensive summary picture, which describes the level and nature of needs in a particular Children’s Centre and area. Key to this are indicators that quantify deprivation, benefits take up including disability and incapacity benefits, educational attainment and health. Also considered are levels of CiN, CP and LAC and the shortage or surplus of places for the Two Year Old Offer. There are some indicators that were only included in the 7 Area analysis, this is where data is only available at this level or where breaking the data down to Children’s Centre level makes it less meaningful. A table summarising the findings of this analysis is included in The Children’s Centre Detailed Data Analysis section.
The Children’s Centre Data Pages and profiles that have also been used to supplement the 7 Area summary analysis are not included in this document, as some of the information could lead to clients being identified. The Children’s Centre Data Pages look at supply with regard to the Children’s Centre Offer in that it provides information on the number of full time members of staff working in the centre, the size of the building, the number of delivery spaces available in the centre as well as current performance data. Information is also included around Family Support and other services currently being delivered. The total weekly hours of service delivery are included alongside whether those services are delivered by centre staff or external partners. Some financial information is also contained within the data pages to show the proportion of spend on estates, staffing and overheads.
Information relating to the source of the data and the methodology that was used to determine the areas and Children’s Centres with the greatest level of need can be found in the Data Sources and Methodology section .
50
In summary, the Children’s Centre Data Pages and the 7 Area analysis have provided the evidence base for decision making, in the context of the wider needs assessment. The recommendations are explicitly informed by the evidence provided.
The Proposed Model for Children’s Centres The recommendations relating to the proposed model for Children’s Centres, takes into consideration a number of key factors in addition to the needs assessment and data analysis:
• Since the introduction of Sure Start Children’s Centres in 1998 the landscape associated with children’s services has changed significantly. An increased focus on; targeted approaches rather than universal delivery, the need for multi-agency working, more robust inspection frameworks and increased demands placed on acute and reactive services including Social Care, have all changed the way in which services are delivered. • Locally staffing numbers in Wakefield have been reduced by 13% over the last three years and by 2017/18 the Council will have reduced in size by over a quarter. With less available resources and the need to make budget savings we need to be creative and innovative in how we deliver our services, to achieve better outcomes and rebalance our delivery to provide preventative approaches and reduce the demands on acute and reactive services. • The current Ofsted Framework introduced on 1 st April 2013 recognises that “Children’s Centres” are a concept rather than a physical entity “and acknowledges that different delivery models are used in different Local Authorities”. The 2013 framework also has a much clearer focus on impacts and outcomes. These changes represent a significant shift from the original concept of Sure Start Children’s Centres delivering universal services from Children’s Centre buildings, to one with more focus on targeted interventions through a flexible delivery model. • Wakefield has high levels of deprivation and demand, therefore our resources need to be targeted in the right place and directed towards the citizens that need them. At the moment we are not getting this right. For example:
Currently not all of our Children’s Centres are located in our areas of highest deprivation and need We currently spend 25% of all Children’s Centre budget is spent on management and administrative costs and 24% is spent on estates and overheads, in order to keep the individual centres open Some of our current Children’s Centres are too small with too few staff to provide meaningful delivery Numbers of vulnerable children and families seen and engaged with on a sustained basis are low across the District, demonstrating the need for a more outreach type approach with less of an emphasis on the buildings themselves Performance measures and outcomes across areas and individual Children’s Centres do not demonstrate that the current model is making a difference to vulnerable children and families in areas of high deprivation and demand
51 Of the 23 centres 16 are not reaching the Ofsted benchmark in terms of engaging at least 65% of the children living in their reach areas
In response to this situation and in order to deliver the integrated early help offer, there are a number of changes required to the existing Children’s Centre arrangements in order that they are fit for purpose and align with the future model of seven Early Help Hubs, whilst still meeting the definition of a Children’s Centre as defined by statutory guidance.
Our proposed model is based on a number of key principles:
• Every community will continue to have access to Children’s Centre services that are flexible to meet the differing needs of communities • Families will be able to register with Wakefield Children’s Centres rather than an individual Centre, thus enabling them to access services from any Centre within the District • To merge current Children’s Centres administratively and for OFSTED registration purposes to deliver a Children’s Centre offer as part of the Integrated Early Help Offer within the seven locality hubs • To reduce the number of buildings used to deliver Children’s Centre services, whilst maintaining provision to communities through other delivery mechanisms • To merge management and staffing of centres so that there is a streamlined management and administration function, focusing more resources on frontline delivery • To secure greater involvement of partner agencies, parents or voluntary sector groups by using this opportunity to promote and support parent-led groups or social enterprise models to manage and/or deliver the more universal elements of Children’s Centre services • Increase the use of Children’s Centre facilities to deliver other aspects of the integrated early offer • To make savings through more effective and focused delivery
In addition a number of other design principles have been applied. They are that:
• Each of the seven areas will have access to a registered Children’s Centre which will deliver a full Children’s Centre offer for the area on site or via outreach • The Early Integrate Help Offer will ensure that outreach services are available for the whole of the area and as such service users will not be reliant on accessing a single Children’s Centre building • The size of building, its capacity for delivery and running costs will be factored in to the method for determining which buildings should remain open • The availability of alternative community buildings for outreach will be factored in • Data on need, demand and population size will determine resource allocation • We have taken into consideration school place planning pressures, school based provision and early years pressures when considering our proposed model • Where Children’s Centres are used to support school place pressures or early years provision this will mitigate against DfE clawback for capital investment
52 Children’s Centre recommendations Proposals for Castlford As this is an area of high need across the District, a main site with a link site is proposed.
Children’s Centre Recommendation/Proposal It is recommended that the Airedale Children’s Centre becomes a main site for the Castleford area. The centre currently utilises the library building on Airedale The Square and the site on Kendal Drive. It is proposed that all Children’s Centre services relocate to Kendal Drive site only as it is a purpose built site and has flexible space that could be used for multiple services
It is proposed that Acorn Children’s Centre becomes a link centre to Acorn Airedale as Castleford is an area of high need. There are fewer school pressures in Acton Pastures Primary School
It is proposed that Ash Tree Children’s Centre is transferred back to Ash Tree Smawthorne Henry Moore Primary School to accommodate the need for Early Years places. There are also 2 Year Old Offer pressures in this area. (including expansion of Two Year Old Offer from Sept 2014)
Reasons for Recommendation: • Area of high need, concentrated around Airedale specifically • Airedale in comparison with Ash Tree and Acorn has most needs with regard to number of CiN/ LAC/ CP/ foundation stage profiling • There are more Troubled Families in Airedale reach area than Ash Tree and Acorn’s • Airedale is a standalone building and the larger of the three centres and as such lends itself to multi agency working. Ash Tree is a small children centre on a school site where there are school place pressures
53
Proposals for Normanton and Featherstone
Children’s Centre Recommendation/Proposal Oakhill It is recommended that Oakhill becomes the main site for delivery of the Integrated Early Help Offer for the Normanton and Featherstone area It is proposed that Butterflies is transferred back to Newlands Primary School as additional resource in anticipation of school place pressures in September 2016 Butterflies In addition it is proposed that negotiations are undertaken to utilise Woodhouse Community Centre and/or Normanton Town Hall for the delivery of Children’s Centre outreach work
It is proposed that Sharlston Children’s Centre is transferred back to Sharlston Sharlston Community School to expand the early years offer
Reasons for Recommendation: • Butterflies and Oakhill have a similar level of need overall • Oakhill has more children living in the 10% most deprived area • Oakhill is stand alone and as such lends itself to integrated service delivery • Sharlston is a small centre in comparison to Butterflies and Oakhill • Sharlston has no children living in the 10% most deprived area • Sharlston Community School have expressed an interest in expanding their early years offer if space were available • Butterflies CC is currently using additional school space which can be reverted back to the school
54 Proposals for Pontefract and Knottingley It is recommended that there is a main site only for the Pontefract and Knottingley area
Children’s Centre Recommendation/Proposal Option A – It is proposed that Pomfret Children’s Centre is considered as the main site for the delivery of the Integrated Early Help Offer for Pontefract and Knottingley area. The building is centrally located, in the area of greatest need however, the true condition of the building needs to be explored further as there are indications that the remaining life span of Pomfret the building may be limited if not invested into heavily
Option B – If the investigation of the building suggests it is not suitable and sustainable for the future, it is proposed that we relocate the Children Centre into alternative community premises and extend that offer to the private nursery provider It proposed that Sycamores Children’s Centre is transferred to Simpson’s Lane Academy to alleviate school place pressures and support the creation of Two Year Old Offer Places
Sycamores In addition it is proposed that negotiations are undertaken to utilise
Knottingley Town Hall Community Centre for the delivery of Children’s Centre outreach work. It is also proposed that discussions take place with the Warwick Adventure Playground regarding the possible delivery of outreach It is proposed that Orchard Head Children’s Centre is transferred to Orchard Orchard head Head Academy and to potentially be utilised for day care and two year old offer places
Reasons for recommendation • Pomfret is geographically centrally located for service user access • A private nursery exists (previous Neighbourhood Nursery) on the same site and linkages exist between the two provisions • Sycamores has the highest reach non-attendance • Sycamores and Orchard Head are both in areas where school place pressures exist • Orchard Head has fewer children living in the 30% most deprived areas when compared to Pomfret and Sycamores • There are less CP and CIN cases in Orchard Head than compared with Pomfret and Sycamores • Orchard Head is closely located to the Pomfret site • Sycamores is in an area of high need but the building is not ideal. It is integral to the Simpson’s Lane Academy building and sits centrally within the school; as such it does not easily lend itself to the new integrated working model
55 Proposals for South East
Chil dren’s Centre Recommendation/Proposal Cedars It is recommended that Cedars Children Centre becomes the main site for the delivery of the Integrated Early Help Offer for the South East area Sunflowers It is proposed that Sunflower Children’s Centre which is very small is transferred as additional as capacity for Moorthorpe Primary School It is proposed that Upton Children’s Centre is transferred back to the sc hool Upton to alleviate school place pressures relating to new housing developments in the area and support the creation of Two Year old Offer places
Little Owls It is proposed that Little Owls Children’s Centre is transferred back to Common Road Infant School for additional Foundation Stage capacity
Reasons for Recommendations
• Cedars is the largest CC in the area • Cedars has the highest number of people living in the 10% most deprived • Cedars has the highest number of CIN and CP cases • Cedars has the lowest number of reach non-attendance • Little Owls and Cedars have similar numbers of troubled families • Sunflowers is a very small centre • Little Owls is only open for limited hours and as such isn’t suitable for the delivery of the Integrated Early Help Offer • Little Owls and Upton are both likely to have early years and school place pressures from September 2014 to 2016
56 Proposals for Wakefield Central As this is an area of high need across the district, a main site with a link site is proposed
Children’s Centre Recommendation/Proposal It is recommended that Sunbeam Children’s Centre becomes the main site Sunbeam for the delivery of the Integrated Early Help Offer for the Wakefield Central area
It is proposed that Pinmoor Children’s Centre becomes a linked site to Pinmoor Sunbeam
It is proposed that Michaelmas Children’s Centre is transferred to St Michael’s Academy to alleviate high school place pressures in the locality as Michaelmas a result of housing developments
In addition it is proposed that Balne Lane Community Centre is utilised for the delivery of Children’s Centre outreach work
Reasons for Recommendation: • Sunbeam is the largest of the 3 Children’s Centres it is a standalone building, with no school place pressures • There are significantly more children living in the 10% most deprived area than Michaelmas and Pinmoor • Pinmoor has a high number of children living in the 30% most deprived area • Pinmoor CC is attached to Pinders Primary School and is on the same site as Pinderfields Early Years Assessment Centre which will lend itself to integrated working and to support the raising of attainment in the EYFS • Pinmoor serves the highest % of Black and Minority Ethnic communities in the area
57 Proposals for Wakefield North West The North west is an identified area of low need. Geographically Pinmoor Children’s Centre and Sunbeam Children’s Centre are able to act as a central hub to support the delivery of a range of outreach services in the North West.
Children’s Centre Recommendation/Propos al It is proposed that Stanley Children’s Centre becomes a link site to Sunbeam Children’s Centre, along with Pinmoor Stanley It is also proposed that discussions are initially undertaken with Stanley St Peters C of E school regarding the future service delivery from the Centre including the private nursery provider which is located on the same site It is proposed that Maypole Children’s Centre is transferred to Gawthorpe Maypole Community Academy to support early year’s provision
It is proposed that Small Steps Children’s Centre is designated back to Small Steps Wrenthorpe Primary School to accommodate the schools current admission number and to support nursery provision for Wrenthorpe Primary and Jerry Clay Lane Academy. It is proposed that Apple Tree Children’s Centre is transferred back to St Peters and Clifton School to alleviate Early Years pressures in Horbury. The Apple Tree centre is not large enough for school places (single class mobile unit with
permanent planning permission) but could be used for childcare, 2 year Old Offer places or after school clubs
Reasons for Recommendation:
• Generally the North West is an area of low need • Small Steps and Apple Tree have the lowest needs in the district • Apple Tree is only open part time • Maypole has a large reach area, however few children live in an area of deprivation. with only 114 children living in the 30% most deprived • School Place Pressures exist for Gawthorpe Community Academy • Maypole is an integrated building attached to the school • Stanley has 183 children living in the 30% most deprived area • Stanley is a standalone building which lends itself to multi agency working • No school place pressures exist at Stanley
58 Proposals for Wakefield Rural
Children’s Centre Recommendation/Proposal Castle It is recommended that Castle Children’s Centre becomes the main site for the delivery of the Integrated Early Help Offer for the Wakefield Rural area. It is proposed that Havercroft Children’s Centre is transferred to Havercroft Havercroft Academy, to support the two year old offer places and childcare sufficiency but that Havercroft and Ryhill Community Centre could be used as an outreach site . It is proposed that Forrest Wood C hildren’s Centre is transferred back to Forrest Wood Mackie Hill School to alleviate future school place pressures related to
future potential housing developments.
Reasons for Recommendation: • Castle is the only centre with children living in the 10% most deprived area – 19 out of 23 when ranked in the area • The Castle site lends itself to an Integrated Early Help Offer model • Castle has the highest number of CIN cases • Castle has the highest number of Troubled Families in the reach area • Forest Wood has a number of children living in the 30% most deprived areas as has Havercroft • The Forrest Wood Centre can be used to alleviate school place pressures related to future housing developments • Havercroft Children’s centre can be offered to the Havercroft Academy to support the delivery of Two Year Old Offer places • The distance between Castle Children’s Centre and the Havercroft area is 7.6 miles
59 Children’s Centre Detailed Data Analysis Wakefield District
Number of Children’s Centres in District: 23 Overall Children’s Centre Budget 2014/15: £5,151,022 Actual number of staff employed across all Children’s Centres: 146 FTE number of staff employed across all Children’s Centres: Awaiting data Number of Children seen at the Children’s Centre where they 10,605 live (2013/2014): N.B. figure does not include children seen out of their area/district Number of Children seen at Children’s Centres (2013/2014): 14,059 N.B. figure includes children seen out of their area/district Overall Unit Cost per child seen: £366.39 Number of children living in the district in 10% most deprived 3,850 areas: Percentage of children living in the 10% most deprived areas 66.5% seen at a Children’s Centre: Number of children living in the district in 30% most deprived 8,357 areas: Percentage of children living in the 30% most deprived areas 64.4% seen at a Children’s Centre: Number of children living in the district in 70% least deprived 8,102 areas: Percentage of children living in the 70% least deprived areas 58.6% seen at a Children’s Centre: Number of open cases of CiN in district: (under 5’s only as at 861 30 th April 2014) Number of children on a CP Plan in district: (under 5’s only as 164 at 30 th April 2014) Number of LAC in district: (under 5’s only as at 30 th April 2014) 117
Family Support Number of cases currently held at all Children’s Centres as at 392 31.3.14 Average cases per Parent Support Worker across all Children’s 9.6 Centres c No. of identified Troubled Families in the Children’s Centre reach 1059 areas No. of identified Troubled Families registered at Children’s 561 Centres (data not available for Airedale, Sycamore & Little Owls) No. of TF with a contact in the Children’s Centre (Qtr 4 13/14) 281 (data not available for Airedale & Sycamore) No. of referrals to Children’s Centres for Family Support (13/14) 611 Expenditure/Budgets (excluding Apple Tree, Forest Wood, Maypole and Small Steps) Budget portion spent on estates % 10% Budget spent on estates £ £443,949 Budget portion spent on staffing % 73% Budget spent on staffing £ £3,304,230 Budget portion spent on other overheads % 17% Budget spent on other overheads £ £779,103
60 High Level Indicators – 7 Area analysis Red - indicates the 3 areas of highest need across the district. * Indicates that the number has been suppressed to avoid disclosure. Castleford Normanton Pontefract South Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield & & East Central North Rural Featherstone Knottingley West IMD - % of people living in neighbourhoods amongst the 31% 9% 10% 12% 28% 0% 3% top-10 most deprived in England No of open cases at CiN where family has a child 184 110 157 113 122 89 86 under 5yrs (as at 30 th April 2014) No of open cases where family has a child under 5yrs 40 18 27 23 23 12 21 subject to CP plan (as at 30 th April 2014) No of open cases where family has a child under 5yrs 14 23 24 21 13 18 who is Looked after (as at 30 th * April 2014) YOT / TYS interventions (Oct 13 - Mar 14) 17% 15% 11% 14% 23% 12% 7%
NEET (%) Feb 2014 6.4% 5.5% 6.8% 5.3% 7.2% 3.0% 3.2%
Education – EYFS results (2013) 57% 55% 57% 57% 47% 66% 55%
Education – Secondary, pupils achieving 5 or more GCSE A*- 64.5% 59.1% 58% 61.3% 64.4% 80.6% 70.2% C (2013) % of children (0 -15) living in out-of-work benefit claimant 28.2% 23.4% 26.1% 25.4% 30.7% 12.0% 15.4% households (May 2012) No. of identified Troubled Families with children under 187 118 168 175 219 108 123 5yrs by area (children under 5 as at 1-5-2014) Low birth weight babies (% of live births, 5 years) (2007- 9.0% 7.8% 8.2% 7.3% 9.2% 7.2% 7.0% 2011)
Breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks (%) (2011) 27.5% 35.1% 26.2% 31. 4% 42.9% 45.7% 39.3%
Prevalence of overweight or obese children in Reception 28.1% 25.0% 23.4% 27.1% 22.7% 20.3% 23.7% Year (%, 3 years) (2007-2010) BME % by area (2011 census) 3.8% 4.8% 4.3% 3.9% 21.6% 5.1% 6.4%
Total number of children 0 - 3158 2429 2784 3013 2886 3764 2275 5yrs by area (as at 1-9-2013) Of Of Of Of Of Of Of those those those those those those those Number of children living in a 10% most deprived area (as at 1273 251 297 913 785 0 331 1-9-2013) % of children registered from 80.28% 98.41% 93.27% 87.29% 79.49% 80.97% the 10% most deprived areas Of Of Of Of Of n/a Of (as at Q4 2013) those those those those those those % of children from the 10% most deprived areas seen at a 61.19% 102.39% 70.03% 72.84% 54.39% n/a 62.84% centre (as at Q4 2013)
61 Data Sources and Methodology 7 Areas Data
Area Data Original Data Source Ranking Data caveat methodology/rationale for use of data IMD – 1. % of people living in Wakefield Observatory – Ranked using figure of 7 Latest IMD information the top %10 most IMD data 2010 being the highest % and 1 as at 2010. deprived areas of being the lowest % for each the district data set. Scores of 1 + 2 2. % of children under Children’s Centre SOA added and re-ranked again, Latest available birth 5yrs living in the top data updated using birth 7 being the highest score data as at 1 st September 10% most deprived data supplied by MYHT (indicating higher need) to 2013. areas of the district as at 1/9/2013 1 the lowest score (indicating lower need) Child Poverty - 1. Children (0-15) Wakefield Observatory – Ranked using figure of 7 Latest information from living in Out-of-work Seven area profiles being the highest % and 1 2012. Benefit Claimant being the lowest % for each Households (% of data set. Scores of 1 + 2 children 0-15) (May added and re-ranked again, 2012) 7 being the highest score 2. Households with Wakefield Observatory – (indicating higher need) to Latest information from dependent children Seven area profiles 1 the lowest score 2011. where no adults in (indicating lower need) employment (% of households with dependent children) (2011) CiN/CP/LAC - 1. Children In Need - Ranked using figure of 7 rate per 10,000 being the highest % and 1 population 10-17yrs being the lowest % for each 2. No of Child in Need Care Director reports data set. Scores of 1 to 4 High CiN cases numbers Open Cases of added and re-ranked again, currently being audited children under 5yrs 7 being the highest score for possibility of ‘Step living in centre (indicating higher need) to Down’. reach (as at 30 th 1 the lowest score April 2014) (indicating lower need) 3. No of children Care Director reports under 5yrs on CP Plans living in reach (as at 30th April 2014) 4. No of Looked After Care Director reports Children under 5 yrs placed in reach (as at 30th April 2014)
62
YOT/TYS/ASB - 1. YOT/TYS Wakefield YOT Team Ranked using figure of 7 Unclear of the timeframe Interventions being the highest % and for the number of undertaken by area 1 being the lowest % for interventions given. (TBC) 2. Anti-Social Behaviour Wakefield Observatory – each data set. Scores of youth related Seven area profiles 1 + 2 added and re- incidents per 1,000 ranked again, 7 being population (FY the highest score 2012/2013) (indicating higher need) to 1 the lowest score (indicating lower need) NEET% - 1. % of those not in Wakefield Observatory – Ranked 1-7, where 7 education, Seven area profiles shows the highest % of employment or NEET, and 1 shows the training lowest % of NEET Benefits - 1. Job Seekers Wakefield Observatory – Ranked using figure of 7 Currently unclear of Allowance claimants - Seven area profiles being the highest % and timeframe for JSA data. % of area population 1 being the lowest % for (TBC) 2. Job Seekers Wakefield Observatory – each data set. Scores of Allowance claimants - Seven area profiles 1 to 4 added and re- no. in area ranked again, 7 being 3. Working-age DWP Wakefield Observatory – the highest score benefit claimants, Seven area profiles (indicating higher need) Disabled (%) (Q03 to 1 the lowest score 2013) (indicating lower need) 4. Working-age DWP Wakefield Observatory – benefit claimants, Seven area profiles Incapacity Benefits (%) (Q03 2013) Think Families - 1. Number of identified Think Families database Ranked 1 – 7, where 7 Troubled Families with shows the highest children under 5 (as at number of identified TF cohort by CC) families in the area (indicating higher need) and 1 showing the lowest TF families in the area (indicating the lower need) Education – EYFS - 1. EYFS Results 2013 Wakefield Schools Data Ranked 1-7, where 7 Team shows the lowest % results, indicating higher need and 1 shows the highest % results showing less need. Education Secondary - 1. Pupils achieving 5 or Wakefield Schools Data Ranked 1-7, where 7 more GCSE passes at Team shows the lowest % A*-C, including English results, indicating and Maths (%, higher need and 1
63 Wakefield) (2013) shows the highest % results showing less need. Education Post 16 - 1. No qualifications (2011) Wakefield Observatory – Ranked using figure of Information from 2011. Seven area profiles 7 being the highest % 2. Level 1 (e.g. and 1 being the lowest 1+CSE/GCSE any grades) % for each data set. (2011) Scores of 1 to 7 added and re-ranked again, 7 3. Level 2 (e.g. 5+GCSEs being the highest score (grades A-C) (2011) (indicating higher need) to 1 the lowest score 4. Apprenticeship (2011) (indicating lower need)
5. Level 3 (e.g. 2+‘A’ levels, NVQ level 3) (2011)
6. Level 4 and above (e.g. degree, HND, qualified nurse) (2011)
7. Other qualifications (2011)
Child Health - 1. Breastfeeding initiation Wakefield Observatory – Ranked using figure of Child Health data (%) (2010) Seven area profiles 7 being the highest % available for 2010/2011, 2. Breastfeeding at 6 to 8 and 1 being the lowest updated information not weeks (%) (2011) % for each data set. currently available. 3. Smoking status at time Scores of data sets1 to of delivery (%) (2010) 7 added and re-ranked 4. Hospital admissions due again, 7 being the to injuries in children highest score aged 0-17 (per 10,000, 5 (indicating higher need) years) (2006-2010) to 1 the lowest score 5. Low Birth Weight Babies (indicating lower need) (% of Live Births, 5 years) (2007-2011) 6. Prevalence of overweight or obese children in reception year (%, 3 years) (Sep 07-10) 7. Prevalence of overweight or obese children in year 6 (%, 3 years) (Sep 07 -10) BME Communities - 1. % of BME population Wakefield Observatory – Ranked 1 – 7, where 7 BME figures taken from within the Wakefield Seven area profiles shows the highest Census 2011. District by 7 area number of BME % profiles (2011) population and 7 shows the least No of children under 5yrs in area -
64 1. 10% most deprived SOA information from Ranked 1 – 7 where 7 is Birth data as at 1 st Children’s Centres – the highest % of those September 2013 as per MYHT birth data update living in a 10% area, updates received from as at 1 st Sept 2013 and 1 the lowest MYHT. Birth data 2. 30% most deprived Ranked 1 – 7 where 7 is regularly given 6 months the highest % of those behind. living in a 30% area, and 1 the lowest 3. 70% least deprived Ranked 1 – 7 where 7 is the lowest % of those living in the 70% area and 1 is the highest % (indicating the lowest need) No of children under 5yrs registered with a centre - 1. 10% most deprived e-Start Children’s Centre Ranked 1 – 7 where 7 is Registrations made Management the highest % of those generally by Health Information Database registered at a centre Visitors through ‘Red and living in a 10% Book’, some delay in area, and 1 the lowest receiving registrations in 2. 30% most deprived Ranked 1 – 7 where 7 is centres. the highest % of those registered at a centre and living in a 30% area, and 1 the lowest 3. 70% least deprived Ranked 1 – 7 where 7 is the lowest % of those registered at a centre and living in a 70% area, and 1 the highest (indicating the lowest need) No of children under 5yrs seen by a centre - 1. 10% most deprived e-Start Children’s Centre Ranked 1 – 7 where 7 is ‘Seen’ figures taken Management the highest % of those from e-Start MI Information Database ‘seen’ at a centre and database where centres living in a 10% area, indicate a ‘contact’. and 1 the lowest System is not robust in 2. 30% most deprived Ranked 1 – 7 where 7 is terms of what is classed the highest % of those as a ‘contact’ therefore ‘seen’ at a centre and figures can lack data living in a 10% area, integrity. and 1 the lowest 3. 70% least deprived Not ranked as this is low level need and therefore does not need to be taken into account Caseloads - 1. Total number of family Management This has not been Cases held at varying support cases held by information requested ranked but should be levels from supporting centres in the area (as direct from centre considered in terms of CP with Social Worker at 3st March 2014) the potential capacity involvement to lower of the centre to offer level support relating to family support single agency issues
65 work/CAF such as housing. Unit costs - 1. Average unit cost Wakefield Finance This has not been ‘Seen’ figures taken (overall budget 14/15) Dept.- budgetary ranked but should be from e-Start MI per child seen information and considered in terms of database where centres (2013/2014) in each e-Start MI database for the costs per child indicate a ‘contact’. area centres. seen, overall costs of System is not robust in service delivery in this terms of what is classed venue vs the number of as a ‘contact’ therefore children the service figures can lack data potentially impacts on. integrity.
FTE staff posts - 1. Total number of FTE Wakefield Finance Dept Ranked 1 – 7, where 7 Posts vary from centre posts across each area – staffing establishments would denote the to centre, where some higher number of posts centres have more PSW held within the area posts (those holding and 1 would denote the caseloads) than others. lowest number of posts in an area (indicating potential capacity) Alternative Service Delivery Venues Information taken direct Suitability for varied from centres who are services would need to currently running be established. Gives a services in their general overview of communities current venue usage.
Distance between centres AA route planner used to calculate distances between each children’s centre
66 Children’s Centre Data Children’s Centre Original Data Source Ranking Data caveat Data methodology/rationale for data use IMD – 1. % of children under Lower Super Output Ranked 1 – 23, where 23 SOA information is only 5yrs living in the top Areas introduced 2004, shows the highest % of updated following a 10% most deprived following 2001 census. children living in a 10% significant increase to areas of the district most deprived areas and population and where where 1 will show the min and max household lowest number (indicating thresholds are breached. the lower level of need) Therefore an understanding of the 2. % of children under Ranked 1 – 23, where 23 locality in its current 5yrs living in the shows the highest % of state is also essential to 30% most deprived children living in a 30% understanding need. areas of the district most deprived areas and where 1 will show the lowest number (indicating the lower level of need)
3. % of children under Ranked 1 – 23, where 1 5yrs living in the shows the highest % of 70% least deprived children living in a 70% areas of the district least deprived areas and where 23 will show the lowest number (indicating the lower level of need) CiN/CP/LAC - 1. No. of children who Care Director reports Ranked 1 -23, where 23 High CiN cases numbers are CiN in the shows the highest number currently being audited centre reach area of children CiN in the reach for possibility of ‘Step area, and 1 shows the Down’. As up to date lowest, indicating the level and accurate as current of need. Care Director files
2. No. of children who Care Director reports Ranked 1 -23, where 23 As up to date and are subject to CP in shows the highest number accurate as current Care the centre reach of children subject to a plan Director files area in the reach area, and 1 shows the lowest, indicating the level of need.
3. No. of LAC placed in Care Director reports Ranked 1 -23, where 23 As up to date and the centre reach shows the highest number accurate as current Care area of children who are LAC in Director files the reach area, and 1 shows the lowest, indicating the level of need.
EYFS Results 2013 1. EYFS Results for Schools Data Team Ranked 1 -23, where 23 reach area (2013) indicates the lowest % result, showing the greatest need and 1
67 showing the highest % result indicating a lower need.
2. EYFS Cohort for Schools Data Team Ranked 1-23, 23 showing reach area (2013) the higher cohort numbers where this could indicate larger cohorts and lower results. Child Health 1. Rate of sustained Mid Yorks Health Trust Ranked 1 -23, 23 showing breast feeding at 6 the lowest rates in the weeks (as at Qtr 4 district where the need is 13/14) greater. 1 indicates the less need and the higher rates of breastfeeding. 2. Prevalence of Mid Yorks Health Trust Ranked 1 -23, 23 shows the Information for Obesity in reception higher % rate, where the 2012/2013 not yet age children in need for support would be available at centre level. reach area (2011) greater and where 1 shows the lower rates where the need is lesser. Services delivered 1. All services e-Start Children’s Centre All weekly run services Centres also run courses delivered by Management calculated by delivery that may be held over a children centres Information Database hours to give figure to number of weeks, listed show potential capacity of courses have been left centre to increase current out at this stage in order delivery times. to give consistency with calculations Performance Data 1. Percentage Seen e-Start Children’s Centre Ranked 1-14, 14 shows the The eStart management within reach area Management centre with the highest information system is from 10% most Information Database number of children seen in used by each centre to deprived areas the 10% and 1 shows the show the numbers of lowest. The ranking has contacts with a been done out of the 14 child/family that it has centres which have had and this does vary children amongst the 10% across centres. areas. Consideration should be given to the way in 2. Percentage Seen e-Start Children’s Centre Ranked 1-21, 21 shows the which this information is within reach area Management centre with the highest captured and thus from 30% most Information Database number of children seen in reflects in the figures deprived areas the 30% and 1 shows the shown. lowest. The ranking has been done out of the 21 centres which have children amongst the 30% areas.
3. Percentage e-Start Children’s Centre Ranked 1-14, 14 shows the Sustained Seen (3+ Management centre with the highest times) within reach Information Database number of children seen in area from 10% most the 10% and 1 shows the deprived areas lowest. The ranking has
68 been done out of the 14 centres which have children amongst the 10% areas. 4. Percentage e-Start Children’s Centre Ranked 1-21, 21 shows the Sustained Seen (3+ Management centre with the highest times) within reach Information Database number of children seen in area from 30% most the 30% and 1 shows the deprived areas lowest. The ranking has been done out of the 21 centres which have children amongst the 30% areas. Family Support 1. Number of family Direct information given This has not been ranked As at figures gained from support cases by Centre Managers as but should be considered in each centre at same currently held at at point in time terms of the costs per child point in time so as to centre (as at seen, overall costs of calculate like for like. 31.3.14) service delivery in this venue vs the number of children the service potentially impacts on.
2. Average cases per Direct information given This has not been ranked It should also be Parent Support by Centre Managers as but should be considered in considered that cases Worker at point in time terms of capacity of PSW’s held may be more or in centres less complex than others and therefore more time could be needed to support a family over another 3. No. of identified Troubled Families This has not been ranked The criteria for troubled Troubled Families in database family address by centre but has been families consider issues the centre reach matched to each considered in terms of the that may be related to area children’s centre reach numbers that have been families with children area identified within each area. over 5 and currently Ranking has been given 1- would not be in the 23 where 23 shows the children’s centre target centre with the highest groups. number of identified families and 1 the lowest.
4. No. of identified Troubled Families This has not been ranked Troubled Families database family address by centre but has been registered at centre matched to e-start to considered in terms of the check family numbers of families that registrations have been registered at a children’s centre.
5. No. of TF with a eStart database checked This has not been ranked contact in the against those TF by centre but has been children’s centre registered to establish if considered in terms of the there has been a numbers that have also had contact with the centre contact with a children’s centre service.
69 6. No. of referrals to e-Start Children’s Centre The number of referrals Consideration should be children’s centre for Management that children’s centres have made to the accuracy of Family Support Information Database indicated they have this information as (2013/2014) received, throughout the centres must ensure financial year, from that all referrals are external partner services. added to the database.
Budget/expenditure 1. Budget spent on Wakefield Finance This information has not estates % Dept.- budgetary been ranked but should be 2. Budget portion information considered in terms of spent on staffing % overall budget spend on 3. Total FTE posts in staff vs buildings to ensure centre future sustainability. 4. Estates costs per m2 5. Size of centre (m2) Staffing budget breakdown 1. Overall staffing Wakefield Finance This information has not budget Dept.- budgetary been ranked but should be 2. Budget portion information considered in terms of spent on overall budget spend on management staff staff vs buildings to ensure % future sustainability. Also 3. Budget portion shows the breakdown of spent on admin front line to back office staff % staff costs. 4. Budget portion spent on all other staff % (inc, Parent Support Workers, Play & Family Learning Workers etc.) Two year old offer and school pressures 1. Two year old offer Schools Organisation The figure shows the surplus/shortage and Information number of places available/shortages for two year old early education in the children’s centre reach area.
2. Rationale for This information relates to school/EY places current/future school placed planning issues which will impact on any school based children’s centres in terms of expanding school place availability.
Building conditions 1. Current condition Capital Development This information gives an overview of the current condition of the children’s centre building which can
70 indicate considerations to future capital spend.
2. Stand This indicates how the Alone/Integrated centre is placed within its building location. Logistical considerations can then be given to location, access, parking etc. 3. IT considerations Systems and Technical This information has been gained at centre level to show IT consideration to future spend on systems and connectivity when considering multi-agency teams. Centre delivery/office areas 1. Number of services Management This information should be delivery information requested considered in terms of the rooms/spaces in direct from centre size of the building and the centre opportunity to deliver services from the centre.
2. Number of offices in This information will inform centre the considerations for housing numbers of staff within the centre. 3. Number of staff currently using office space
71