Early Years (age 0-5) Joint Strategic Needs Assessment · Introduction •This is the first...

Early Years (age 0-5) Joint Strategic Needs Assessment What happens in pregnancy and early childhood impacts on physical and emotional health all the way through to adulthood. This report gives an outline of Southend’s strengths and needs with regard to measures of Early Years outcomes.

Operational Performance and Intelligence 2018

Contact: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Introduction

• This is the first iteration of the 0-5 Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

• It is an initial release and published on the OPI intranet site

• We are keen to gather feedback from stakeholders within the organisation, and would greatly appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and ideas with us with regard to this JSNA.

• You can contact us at [email protected]

2

mailto:[email protected]

Glossary of Terms

Area –The term ‘area’ here refers to Electoral Wards

ABS(S) – A Better Start (Southend) - a 10-year programme to support families and children by improving children's services in Southend. 6 wards in particular are being targeted by the ABS scheme; Kursaal, Milton, Victoria, Shoeburyness, West Shoebury and Westborough.

BOB – Blue/Orange/Blue – denoting outcomes that can be higher or lower, but not necessarily better or worse

DfE – Department for Education

DMFT - Decayed, missing or filled teeth

EYFS – Early Years Foundation Stage

IDACI – Part of the IMD concerning the number of children who are income deprived in an area.

IMD – Index of Multiple Deprivation

Localities - A locality is the central place where integrated health and social care interventions are co-ordinated. There are 4 in Southend – West, Central West, Central East and East.

PHE – Public Health England

RAG – Red/Amber/Green – denoting outcomes or performance from worse to better respectively

SNA – Statistical Neighbour Average

R2 - R-squared is a statistical measure of the percentage of the change in a variable that can be explained by another variable. Where two variables are strongly associated (e.g. smoking prevalence and rates of lung cancer) the R2 value would be close to 1. Where two variables are not associated at all the R2 value would be 0.

3

Overview of contents

• The analysis here is split into 11 themes, based around PHE frameworks and other domains (Children’s Social Care, Education etc.)

• Each theme starts with a spine chart. Spine charts are a popular visualisation that show, at a glance, how one area compares with others across a range of indicators.

• The next visualisation for each theme is a matrix to aid understanding of possible priorities for attention in the Borough. These are 3 x 3 grids showing the trend (improving, declining, and no change/no trend) and current position compared to the national average (better/worse/no significant difference)

• There then follows further visualisations and narrative highlighting some of the key characteristics of the data and indicators for each theme. These include tables, graphs and maps, highlighting headline findings, key messages and, where available, breakdowns of key measures into demographic (e.g. age, ethnicity, language spoken) and geographic (e.g. locality, ward, and neighbourhood) groups.

• Wherever you see a symbol like this - - and if you are accessing this document internally, you can click it to be taken to further supplementary information for the indicator or theme, stored on Southend’s intranet site.

4

HERE

http://seattle/people/SitePages/Data and Performance Team.aspx?RootFolder=/people/Folders/Public Health&FolderCTID=0x01200061D581DA36F2534DB78DA8D3EBD57D84&View=81EDFA98-36A9-4AC7-81B5-885551B23E67

5

How to interpret Spine Charts

5

- The range of values is represented by the outer

edges of the light grey areas. The smallest or worst

value is the furthest left, and the largest or best

value is the furthest right

- The interquartile range is represented by the dark

grey area. The left edge of it is the 25th percentile,

where 25% of local values are worse/lower than

this value. The right edge is the 75th percentile,

where 25% of local values are better/higher than

this value

- The polarity of the indicator can determine

whether the left hand side is the lowest or highest

value. It is common to present a set of indicators so

that worse values are on the left of the benchmark,

and better values are on the right regardless of the

value itself (for example, a high mortality rate is bad

so can be presented on the left hand side). When

high/low values are neither good or bad, the high

value is displayed to the right of the comparator

- the significance of the area specific value

compared to the benchmark can be represented by

the colour of the circle displaying the value for the

area. These colours can indicate whether the value

is significantly better, worse, higher, lower or not

significantly different from the benchmark

- Children in low income families 0-4 is significantly worse than the England value

(the circle is red).

- Births to mothers aged 40+: % of live births are not significantly different from the

England value (the circle is amber)

- No indicators in this spine chart are significantly better than the England average

(the circle would be green).

- Births to mothers aged <20: % of live births is higher than the England value (the

circle is light blue)

- Women of childbearing age (15-44): % of total population is lower than the England

value (the circle is dark blue)

- Percentage of the population who are five years old is unable to be compared (the

circle is white)

SNA

Numerat

orValue Value Avg

RAG -

Worst /

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG -

Best/

BOB -

Highest

Children in low income families aged 0 to 4 2013 2680 23.5 22.6 21.0 38.2 6.4 -Births to mothers aged 40+: % of live

births 2015 84 3.8 3.3 4.2 1.9 10.2 -

Births to mothers aged <20: % of live

births 2015 95 4.3 4.1 3.5 0.8 7.6 -

Women of childbearing age (15-44): % of

total population2015 33569 18.8 18.5 19.8 14.3 28.7 -

Percentage of deliveries to mothers from

Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups2016/17 271 13.1 13.7 22.6 1.7 72.1

Percentage of the population who are five

years old2016 2314 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 0.9 -

Compared

to 5 years

ago

TrendPeriod

National breakdownSouthend-on-Sea

Indicator

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

Southend NationalDemography and

Wider Determinants

Health Visiting

Outcomes

Children’s

Social Care

Outcomes

EYFS

Health, Wellbeing and

Development

Vaccinations Healthy Weight, Healthy

Nutrition

Managing Illness

and Reducing

Accidents

Breastfeeding

Perinatal

Outcomes

and

Behaviours

Conception and

Contraception This is a high level graphic that shows how good or bad outcomes are for different themes regarding 0-5 year old children.

Those themes with a green box next to their names are those where Southend does broadly better than the national average. Those in red are those where Southend does worse.

On the ‘spider web’ the orange circle represents the national average for each theme. Where the blue lines sit outside the circle Southend does better than the national average, and where they sit inside Southend does worse. How far inside or outside the orange circle the blue lines sit reflect the extent to which Southend is worse or better than the national average.

One can see that the themes that Southend does most poorly in relate to wider determinants of health, or outcomes that occur pre-birth and shortly after birth. Southend also does worse with regard to outcomes and indicators relating to Children’s Social Care.

Index of Grouped

Outcomes

Demography and Wider Determinants Wider determinants, also known as social determinants, are a diverse range of social, economic and environmental factors which impact on people’s health. Such factors are influenced by the local, national and international distribution of power and resources which shape the conditions of daily life.

7

8

Demography – Spine Chart

8

SNA

Numerat

orValue Value Avg

RAG -

Worst /

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG -

Best/

BOB -

Highest

1 Children in low income families aged 0 to 4 Persons 0-4 yrs % 2013 2680 23.5 22.6 21.0 38.2 6.4 -

2Births to mothers aged 40+: % of live

births Female

All

ages% 2015 84 3.8 3.3 4.2 1.9 10.2 -

3Births to mothers aged <20: % of live

births Female

All

ages% 2015 95 4.3 4.1 3.5 0.8 7.6 -

4Women of childbearing age (15-44): % of

total populationFemale

15-44

yrs% 2015 33569 18.8 18.5 19.8 14.3 28.7 -

5Percentage of deliveries to mothers from

Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groupsFemale

All

ages% 2016/17 271 13.1 13.7 22.6 1.7 72.1

6Percentage of the population who are five

years oldPersons 5 yrs per 100 2016 2314 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 0.9 -

Compared

to 5 years

ago

TrendIndicator Period

National breakdown

Unit

type of

Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

Key:

Significantly better than all clusters average - Increasing / Getting better

Not significantly different from all clusters average - Decreasing / Getting better

Significantly worse than all cluster average - Increasing / Getting worse

Significantly lower than all clusters average - Decreasing / Getting worse

Significantly higher than all clusters average - Increasing

Not compared - Decreasing

- No significant change

- No comparison has been made-

9

Demography - Matrix T

rend

Comparison to national average

- Children in low income

families aged 0 to 4

Better Similar/No Comparison Worse

Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

10

Demographics Southend’s age profile

Ward All ages Early years (0-4) Count

Early years (0-4) %

Belfairs 9,570 472 4.9%

Blenheim Park 10,987 663 6.0%

Chalkwell 10,331 587 5.7%

Eastwood Park 9,444 466 4.9%

Kursaal 11,885 984 8.3%

Leigh 10,304 674 6.5%

Milton 11,905 746 6.3%

Prittlewell 10,459 641 6.1%

St Laurence 9,934 502 5.1%

St. Luke's 11,335 790 7.0%

Shoeburyness 11,920 798 6.7%

Southchurch 10,174 610 6.0%

Thorpe 9,183 432 4.7%

Victoria 11,496 929 8.1%

Westborough 11,084 913 8.2%

West Leigh 9,401 609 6.5%

West Shoebury 10,387 633 6.1%

All ages Early Years (0-4) Count

Early Years (0-4) %

ENGLAND 55,268,067 3,429,046 6.2%

Southend-on-Sea 180,606 11,464 6.3%

Source: PHE Fingertips

NOTE: The sum of the populations of each ward will not match the stated total for

Southend, due to differences in the ONS source data

Population figures and percentages from the ONS 2016

mid-year estimate

11

Demographics Distribution of Southend’s under 5 year olds

East Central locality

has the highest

proportion of 0-5s,

whilst West Central

has the highest

number. West

locality has both the

lowest number and

proportion of 0-5

year olds.

Victoria and Kursaal

have the highest

number of 0-5

children by ward,

and are also the

most deprived

wards in Southend.

12

Demographics Languages spoken by Southend’s under 5’s

Description Count %

English 1761 84.54

Polish 43 2.06

Urdu 26 1.25

Malayalam 20 0.96

Albanian/Shqip 13 0.62

Bengali 13 0.62

Italian 12 0.58

Portuguese 12 0.58

Romanian 12 0.58

The 2017 Early Years Foundation Stage Profile lists 57

languages which had been recorded as a pupils first

language

Most common languages Ward Pupils with English as an Additional Language

Belfairs 8.75%

Blenheim Park 7.09%

Chalkwell 16.09%

Eastwood Park 3.26%

Kursaal 17.2%

Leigh 5.83%

Milton 32.23%

Prittlewell 32.46%

Shoeburyness 5.93%

Southchurch 21.54%

St Laurence 13.79%

St. Luke's 13.07%

Thorpe 4.05%

Victoria 25%

West Leigh 4.76%

West Shoebury 8.62%

Westborough 20.83%

Languages spoken English as an additional language Overall, 15.7% of Southend's under 5’s have English as an

additional language, but there is considerable variation between

wards.

Prittlewell has the highest prevalence, at 32.46%, whilst

Eastwood Park has the lowest, at 3.26%

Source: EYFS Profile 2017

13

Demographics English as an Additional Language (EAL)

Having English as

an Additional

Language (EAL)

can be a barrier to

learning, particular

with regard to

learning in literacy.

The highest

proportion of those

children who have

EAL, live in the

central, and more

deprived, part of

Southend, whilst

the lowest

proportions are

predominantly in

the western most

wards of the

Borough.

14

Demographics Ethnicity

Official ethnicity calculations are only released every 10 years through the national

Census. However the indications we have suggest that Southend is becoming a

more ethnically diverse borough.

This is particularly significant for our early years population as ethnic diversity

differs across age cohorts; whilst 91.6% of the total population of Southend was

White in 2011, only 85.3% of 0-4 years old were from this group. Of those children

that completed the 2017 Early Years Foundation Score (EYFS) assessment, this

figure dropped to 81.2%.

Within non-White groups, there has also been an increase in ‘Other’ ethnic group

population, comprising of Arab and other populations not described by the other

categories.

91.6%

85.3%

81.2%

76.00%

78.00%

80.00%

82.00%

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

White

All Age Groups 2011

Census

Age 0 to 4 2011

Census

EYFS 2017

2.1%

6.7%

7.4%

3.71%

4.75%

6.0%

2.1%

2.9%

2.8%

0.5%

0.3%

1.9%

0.6

%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2011 Census

2011 Census

2017 EYFS

All

Age

Gro

ups

Age

0 t

o 4

EY

FS

Non White Population

Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups

Asian/Asian British

Black/ African/Caribbean/Black British

Other ethnic group

Information Not Yet Obtained/Refused

R² = 0.5002

This is graph with a point representing every local authority in England. If the point is lower on the graph then it means the authority scores worse in terms of outcomes for infants and young children. If the point is further to the right of the graph then it means that this authority is more deprived. Southend is the blue point.

As deprivation increases, outcomes for 0-5 year olds get worse. The relationship is strong and is beyond what might occur by chance alone.

Details of both the Early Years and Deprivation Indices can be found in the appendices at the end of this document. 15

Index of Early Years vs Index of Deprivation

WORSE OUTCOMES

BETTER OUTCOMES

MORE DEPRIVED

LESS DEPRIVED

DEPRIVATION

CH

ILD

RE

N’S

OU

TC

OM

ES

BETTER WORSE

BE

TT

ER

W

OR

SE

16

Deprivation Southend’s residents living in the most deprived areas

39% of Southend’s residents live in the most

deprived areas (most deprived 30% of the country),

but there is considerable disparity between different

age groups.

A significantly higher proportion of 0-5 year olds

live in the most deprived areas than any other age

group

45.8% of 0-5

year olds

42.3% of children

(5-15)

41.1% of working age

(16-64)

28.8% of older people

(65+)

Who lives in the most deprived areas?

Icons designed by Freepik from Flaticon

17

Children in low income families Southend compared to its neighbours

Local Authority

Children in Low Income

Families Compared to all English Local Authorities

Percentage Rank

(1 = best)

Quintile

(1 = best)

Poole 13.30% 44 of 152 LA's 2nd Quintile

Swindon 13.60% 46 of 152 LA's 2nd Quintile

Kent 15.50% 64 of 152 LA's 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Bournemouth 15.70% 68 of 152 LA's 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

East Sussex 15.70% 68 of 152 LA's 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Isle of Wight 17.40% 79 of 152 LA's 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Medway 18.10% 83 of 152 LA's 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Southend-on-Sea 18.50% 87 of 152 LA's 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Plymouth 18.60% 89 of 152 LA's 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Telford and Wrekin 19.90% 100 of 152 LA's 4th Quintile

Sheffield 21.60% 116 of 152 LA's 4th Quintile

In the most recent figures, 2015, there were 7,145 children in low income families, or 18.5% of Southend’s children.

This puts Southend in the middle of the rank of English Local Authorities, ranking 87 th out of 152.

When compared to the local authorities deemed to be most similar to Southend by the Chartered Institute of Public

Finance and Accountancy (our CIPFA nearest neighbours), Southend is in the middle of our neighbour group.

18

Children in low income families Inequalities between our Wards

Ward

Children in Low Income Families Compared to all English Wards

Count Percentage Rank

(1 = best)

Quintile

(1 = best)

West Leigh 75 4.00% 534 of 7644 wards 1st Quintile (Best 20%)

Leigh 145 7.10% 1965 of 7644 wards 2nd Quintile

Thorpe 110 7.10% 1965 of 7644 wards 2nd Quintile

Eastwood Park 155 8.70% 2760 of 7644 wards 2nd Quintile

Chalkwell 170 9.50% 3123 of 7644 wards 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Belfairs 160 9.60% 3166 of 7644 wards 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Prittlewell 285 13.60% 4601 of 7644 wards 4th Quintile

Blenheim Park 445 18.10% 5730 of 7644 wards 4th Quintile

St. Laurence 365 18.10% 5730 of 7644 wards 4th Quintile

Westborough 530 18.10% 5730 of 7644 wards 4th Quintile

St. Luke's 580 20.10% 6092 of 7644 wards 4th Quintile

Southchurch 515 22.20% 6431 of 7644 wards 5th Quintile (Worst 20%)

Shoeburyness 620 22.80% 6524 of 7644 wards 5th Quintile (Worst 20%)

West Shoebury 570 23.10% 6568 of 7644 wards 5th Quintile (Worst 20%)

Milton 555 26.30% 6951 of 7644 wards 5th Quintile (Worst 20%)

Victoria 925 31.00% 7325 of 7644 wards 5th Quintile (Worst 20%)

Kursaal 930 32.30% 7399 of 7644 wards 5th Quintile (Worst 20%)

There is considerable disparity between wards:

• The lowest value is West Leigh ward, at 4.0%, which is amongst the best 20% of wards in England

• The highest value is Kursaal ward, at 32.3 %, which is ranked 7,325th of England's 7,644 wards

• 11 of Southend’s 17 wards have a higher proportion of children living in poverty than the England

average; six of these are amongst the worst 20% of wards in the country.

DRAFT

DRAFT 19 Operational Performance & Intelligence Team – Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Children in low income families Ward map

As with many maps

showing various

deprivations, and

correspondingly those

showing poor

outcomes or social

problems, the

southern central part

of Southend shows

the highest proportion

of children living in

low income families,

predominantly in the

East Central locality.

The West Central

locality has the

smallest proportion of

children in low income

households.

20

Children in low income families Trend since 2006

The percentage of children in low income families in Southend has broadly decreased since

its peak in 2009. You can also see that this measure follows very closely with the trend

nationally. This reflects the extent to which Southend’s economy, rates of wages, and the

prospect for employment are deeply influenced by the wider, ‘macro’ economy. 2015 is the

latest available figure for this measure.

Conception and Contraception Provision of contraception is an important health care service which contributes to better maternal and child health. Contraceptives are available on the NHS without a prescription charge. The cost benefit of contraceptives is well established and has been estimated at £11 for every £1 spent.

21

22

Conception and Contraception; Spine Chart

22

SNA

Numerat

orValue Value Avg

RAG -

Worst /

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG -

Best/

BOB -

Highest

1Under 25s choose LARC excluding

injections at SRH Services (%)Female <25 yrs % 2016 288 11.8 22.4 21.3 0.0 39.3 -

2Women choose hormonal short-acting

contraceptives at SRH Services (%)Female All ages % 2016 3377 65.8 46.1 46.1 24.3 65.8 -

3Women choose user-dependent methods

at SRH Services (%)Female All ages % 2016 3905 76.1 60.5 61.6 45.3 100.0 -

4Women choose injections at SRH

Services (%)Female All ages % 2016 289 5.6 9.5 9.5 0.0 23.5 -

5SRH Services prescribed LARC

excluding injections rate / 1,000Female All ages per 1000 2016 895 26.8 19.7 18.4 0.0 45.6 -

6Total prescribed LARC excluding

injections rate / 1,000Female All ages per 1000 2016 1325 39.7 43.1 45.1 6.1 80.4 -

7Under 18s conceptions leading to

abortion (%)Female <18 yrs % 2016 44 54.3 49.7 53.1 31.6 81.3

8Under 16s conception rate / 1,000

(PHOF indicator 2.04)Female <16 yrs per 1000 2016 10 3.6 3.6 3.3 7.7 0.7

9Under 18s conception rate / 1,000

(PHOF indicator 2.04)Female <18 yrs per 1000 2016 81 27.1 22.0 19.6 36.5 4.6

10Abortions under 10 weeks that are

medical (%)Female All ages % 2017 308 78.4 80.6 80.1 49.2 100.0 -

11 Under 25s abortion after a birth (%) Female <25 yrs % 2017 76 31.9 32.5 27.4 52.7 9.3 -

12 Under 18s abortions rate / 1,000 Female <18 yrs per 1000 2017 29 10.1 9.5 8.7 2.4 15.4

13 Under 25s repeat abortions (%) Female 15-24 yrs % 2017 80 33.6 27.0 26.4 39.0 13.9

Compar

ed to 5

years

ago


National breakdown

Unit

type of

Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

23

Conception and Contraception; Matrix

Tre

nd


- Under 16s conception rate /

1,000 (PHOF indicator 2.04)

- Under 25s abortion after a

birth (%)

- Under 18s conception rate /

1,000 (PHOF indicator 2.04)

- Under 25s repeat abortions

(%)


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

24

Teenage Pregnancy

24

You can find Southend’s Teenage Pregnancy Profile , PHE’s Teenage Pregnancy in

Southend Review and Southend’s Sexual Health Profile

Across a variety of indicators Southend performs

worse than the region, England, and its statistical

neighbours in terms of measures of teenage

pregnancy.

Whilst there is no biomedical reason that teenage

mothers and their children suffer worse outcomes,

it is widely understood that early motherhood is

associated with poor antenatal health, lower birth

weight and higher infant mortality.

http://seattle/people/Folders/Public Health/Papers/Teenage Pregnancy in Southend v1.0.docx

http://seattle/people/Folders/Public Health/Papers/180514 Sexual Health Profiles V1.0.docx

Perinatal Behaviours and Outcomes Early attachment and good maternal mental health shapes a child’s later emotional, behavioural and intellectual development.

25

26

Perinatal Outcomes - Spine

Note on Smoking indicators - From April 2017 the current definition of

Smoking Status has changed to exclude women with unknown smoking

status from the denominator when calculating the proportion of women

smoking at the time of delivery. The historic method included all

maternities.

SNA

Numerato

rValue Value Avg

RAG -

Worst /

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG -

Best/

BOB -

Highest

1Smoking status at time of delivery

(historical method)Female All ages % 2013/14 244 10.9 14.6 12.5 27.5 1.9 -

2Smoking status at time of delivery

(current method)Female All ages % 2016/17 175 8.8 12.9 11.0 28.1 2.3

3Premature births (less than 37

weeks gestation)Persons

>=37 weeks

gestational age at birthper 1000 2014 - 16 558 82.9 82.5 80.0 109.6 61.6 -

4Births to non-UK parents: % of

live birthsPersons < 1 yr % 2015 521 23.3 20.9 33.7 6.1 84.2 -

5Sole registered births: % births

registered by one parent onlyPersons 0 yrs % 2014 156 7.1 6.1 5.6 2.1 10.8 -

6 Multiple births Female 15-44 yrs per 1000 2016 40 18.0 15.5 15.8 9.5 22.7

7 General fertility rate Female 15-44 yrs per 1000 2016 2260 67.7 63.3 63.1 41.6 86.5

8Percentage of deliveries to women

aged 35 years or aboveFemale All ages % 2016/17 456 22.1 19.1 21.7 10.7 47.4 -

9 Under 18s births rate / 1,000 Female <18 yrs per 1000 2016 29 9.7 6.9 5.9 15.6 1.0

10 Teenage mothers Female 12-17 yrs % 2016/17 25 1.2 1.0 0.8 2.1 0.0

11 Neonatal mortality and stillbirths Persons <28 d per 1000 2016 12 5.3 7.2 6.9 12.3 2.9

12 Caesarean section % Female All ages % 2016/17 583 28.2 26.9 27.3 34.5 18.8 -

13 Very low birth weight of all babies Persons 0 yrs % 2016 33 1.5 1.3 1.2 2.7 0.5

14 Low birth weight of all babies Persons 0 yrs % 2016 171 7.6 7.4 7.4 12.4 4.7

152.01 - Low birth weight of term

babiesPersons

>=37 weeks

gestational age at birth% 2016 57 2.8 2.8 2.8 5.8 1.3

Compare

d to 5

years ago


National breakdown

Unit type

of Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

27

Perinatal Outcomes - Matrix T

rend


- Smoking status at time of

delivery (current method)

- Smoking status; time of

delivery - Premature births

- Low/Very Low Birth Weights

- Percentage of deliveries to

women aged 35 years or above

- Under 18s births rate / 1,000 -

- Teenage mothers


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

28

Perinatal Outcomes

Prevalence of perinatal mental health

conditions in Southend

Public Health England (PHE) estimate the number of

pregnant women and new mothers who are likely to be

affected by certain mental health conditions during

pregnancy and the postnatal period. These estimates are

based on national prevalence estimates and the local

birth rate, they do not take account of any underlying

factors which is likely to cause variation across areas:

Severe depressive illness

PTSD

Postpartum psychosis

Chronic Serious Mental Illness

Mild-moderate depressive illness and

anxiety

Adjustment disorders and distress in

perinatal period

70

70

5

5

220 - 330

330 - 655

A detailed report on Maternal Health

can be found

It contains details on;

• Maternal weight at booking

• BMI at Booking and Delivery

• Mothers Smoking Status at

Booking and Delivery

• Alcohol Consumption at Booking

• Current Substance Use at

Booking

• Breastfeeding Initiation at

Delivery and with 48 hours

http://seattle/people/Folders/Public Health/Papers/A Better Start Southend- Summary paper on Maternal Health.docx

Breastfeeding Breastfeeding is a priority for improving children’s health, reducing risk of a range of negative outcomes for the child, but also having a protective effect for mothers.

29

30

Breastfeeding; Spine Chart

SNA

Numerator Value Value Avg

RAG -

Worst /

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG -

Best/

BOB -

Highest

12.02ii - Breastfeeding - breastfeeding prevalence

at 6-8 weeks after birth - historical methodPersons 6-8 weeks % 2012/13 845 36.7 38.3 45.2 17.5 83.3 -

2Breastfeeding prevalence at 6-8 weeks after birth -

current methodPersons 6-8 weeks % 2015/16 943 44.3 41.8 42.4 18.0 76.5 -

3 Breastfeeding initiation Female All ages % 2016/17 1713 83.1 69.2 73.0 37.9 96.7 -

Compared

to 5 years

ago


National breakdown

Unit type

of Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

Historic - Between April 2013 and September 2015

these data were collected directly from providers via

the data collection tool that is part of Unify2, a web

based system set up to collect performance and other

central returns directly from the NHS. The figures are

obtained from maternity providers, from midwives in

acute trusts and information recorded at deliveries.

Current - From October 2015 these data have been

obtained via interim reporting arrangements to collect

health visiting activity at a local authority resident level

31

Breastfeeding; Matrix T

rend


- Breastfeeding prevalence at 6-

8 weeks after birth - current method

- 2.02ii - Breastfeeding -

breastfeeding prevalence at 6-8 weeks after birth - historical

method

- Breastfeeding initiation


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

32

Breastfeeding – ABS comparison

Whilst Southend performs significantly better than the national average for Breastfeeding

initiation (giving babies breast milk in the first 48 hours), there are significant variations

within Southend.

82.6% of deliveries lead to breastfeeding

initiation for non-ABS wards

76.5% of deliveries lead to breastfeeding

initiation for ABS wards

Further analysis of lower-level breastfeeding

information can be found

http://seattle/people/Folders/Public Health/Papers/A Better Start Southend- Summary paper on Maternal Health.docx

Managing Illness and Reducing Accidents Illness such as gastroenteritis and upper respiratory tract infections, along with injuries caused by accidents in the home, are the leading causes of attendances at Accident & Emergency (A&E) and hospitalisation amongst the under 5s. There is a strong link between unintentional injury and social deprivation, with children from the most disadvantaged families far more likely to be killed or seriously injured.

33

34

Managing Illness and Reducing Accidents; Spine Chart (1)

SNA

Numerat

orValue Value Avg

RAG -

Worst /

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG -

Best/

BOB -

Highest

1Emergency hospital admissions due to poisoning from

medicines (aged 0-4 years)Persons 0-4 yrs

per

100,000

2012/13 -

16/1724 42.1 125.3 104.9 227.9 15.7 -

2Emergency hospital admissions due to burns from food and

hot fluids (aged 0-4 years)Persons 0-4 yrs

per

100,000

2012/13 -

16/1720 35.1 46.5 44.0 197.9 10.2 -

3Emergency hospital admissions due to hot tap water scalds

(aged 0-4 years)Persons 0-4 yrs

per

100,000

2012/13 -

16/170 0.0 6.8 7.5 20.7 0.0 -

4Emergency hospital admissions due to falls from furniture

(aged 0-4 years)Persons 0-4 yrs

per

100,000

2012/13 -

16/1765 114.0 162.4 143.3 453.6 56.0 -

5Emergency hospital admissions due to inhalation of food or

vomit (aged 0-4 years)Persons 0-4 yrs

per

100,000

2012/13 -

16/170 0.0 17.2 14.0 52.8 0.0 -

6Emergency admissions for accidental poisoning in children

aged 0-4Persons 0-4 yrs

per

100,000

2014/15 -

16/1718 52.5 186.1 150.4 369.2 23.3 -

7Emergency admissions for exposure to heat and hot

substances in children aged 0-4Persons 0-4 yrs

per

100,000

2014/15 -

16/1714 40.9 85.0 81.4 339.0 18.8 -

8Emergency admissions for exposure to inanimate mechanical

forces in children aged 0-4Persons 0-4 yrs

per

100,000

2014/15 -

16/1755 160.5 261.1 238.4 779.1 87.2 -

9Emergency admissions for exposure to animate mechanical

forces in children aged 0-4Persons 0-4 yrs

per

100,000

2014/15 -

16/1727 78.8 55.6 44.8 109.1 12.9 -

10 Emergency admissions for falls in children aged 0-4 Persons 0-4 yrsper

100,000

2014/15 -

16/17139 405.6 588.9 524.8 1050.7 205.1 -

11Children aged 5 and under killed or seriously injured in road

traffic accidentsPersons 0-5 yrs

per

100,0002014 - 16 1 2.4 6.5 7.6 25.3 0.0 -

12 Neonatal mortality Persons <28 d per 1000 2014 - 16 16 2.4 2.7 2.7 5.9 1.1 -

13 Stillbirth rate Persons 0 yrs per 1000 2014 - 16 27 4.0 4.5 4.5 7.7 2.3 -

14 4.01 - Infant mortality Persons < 1 yr per 1000 2014 - 16 24 3.6 3.8 3.8 7.9 1.6 -

15 Emergency admissions (aged 1-4) Persons 1-4 yrs per 1000 2015/16 507 55.0 130.9 109.8 202.1 39.0

Compare

d to 5

years

ago


National breakdown

Unit type

of Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

35

Managing Illness and Reducing Accidents; Spine Chart (2)

16 Elective admissions (rate per 1000 population) age 1-4 years Persons 1-4 yrs per 1000 2015/16 461 50.0 58.1 54.2 102.7 29.5

17 Emergency admissions (rate per 1000 population) <1 Persons < 1 yr per 1000 2015/16 388 177.3 432.5 368.9 712.0 118.2

18Elective admissions (rate per 1000 population) aged under 5

yearsPersons 0-4 yrs per 1000 2015/16 654 57.4 59.0 55.3 96.7 28.6

19 Elective admissions (rate per 1000 population) <1 Persons < 1 yr per 1000 2015/16 193 88.2 62.8 60.2 175.8 24.9

20 A&E attendances (1-4 years) Persons 1-4 yrs per 1000 2015/16 4141 449.5 591.4 567.7 1679.8 285.1

21 A&E attendances (under 1 year) Persons < 1 yr per 1000 2015/16 1366 624.0 820.8 839.3 2408.0 341.0

22 Emergency admissions (aged 0-4) Persons 0-4 yrs per 1000 2015/16 895 78.5 188.8 159.7 307.9 57.3

23 Admissions for gastroenteritis in infants aged 1 year Persons 1 yrper

10,0002015/16 10 43.3 134.2 96.0 230.6 16.8 -

24 2.20xi - Newborn Blood Spot Screening - Coverage Persons < 1 yr % 2015/16 2119 99.2 94.4 95.7 70.2 99.8 -

25Admissions for respiratory tract infections in infants aged 1

yearPersons 1 yr

per

10,0002016/17 13 59.2 84.1 85.5 155.9 35.2 -

26Admissions for respiratory tract infections in infants aged

under 1 yearPersons < 1 yr

per

10,0002016/17 71 308.3 782.8 642.4 1308.8 213.5 -

27 Admissions for gastroenteritis in infants aged 2, 3 and 4 years Persons 2-4 yrsper

10,0002016/17 18 25.8 78.9 56.5 136.7 9.6 -

28 Admissions for gastroenteritis in infants aged under 1 year Persons < 1 yrper

10,0002016/17 17 73.8 240.3 187.8 383.6 27.9 -

29 Admissions of babies under 14 days Persons <14 days per 1000 2016/17 95 46.0 78.7 72.9 305.6 21.1 -

302.07i - Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and

deliberate injuries in children (aged 0-4 years)Persons 0-4 yrs

per

10,0002016/17 79 69.0 150.5 130.6 265.1 47.3

31 A&E attendances (0-4 years) Persons 0-4 yrs per 1000 2016/17 5902 515.5 668.3 634.1 1926.9 333.5

36

Managing Illness and Reducing Accidents; Matrix

Tre

nd


- Emergency admissions (aged 1-4)

- Emergency admissions (rate per

1000 population) <1 - A&E attendances (1-4 years)

- A&E attendances (under 1 year)

- Emergency admissions (aged 0-4)

- Elective admissions (rate per

1000 population) <1

- 2.07i - Hospital admissions

caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in children

(aged 0-4 years)

- Burns from food/hot fluids- Falls from furniture- <5 killed/seriously injured in road traffic accidents- Neonatal mortality- Stillbirth rate - Infant mortality - Respiratory Tract Infections >1yr- Elective admissions rate - age 1-4 years

- Elective admissions (rate per 1000

population) aged under 5 years

- Emergency admissions for

exposure to animate mechanical

forces in children aged 0-4

- Poisoning from medicines/accidental poisoning- Inhalation of food or vomit- Exposure to heat/hot substance

- Falls- Gastroenteritis- Newborn Blood Spot Screening- Respiratory Tract Infections <1yr

- Admission of Babies <14 days


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

Healthy Weight, Healthy Nutrition Children who are overweight are at increased risk of poor health outcomes such as type 2 diabetes and poor mental health. Childhood obesity is a significant health inequality with higher rates amongst children in disadvantaged areas and some ethnic groups.

38

Healthy Weight, Healthy Nutrition – Spines (1)

SNA


RAG - Worst

/

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG - Best/

BOB -

Highest

1 dmft in three year olds Persons 3 yrsmean dmft

per child2012/13 0 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.0 -

2 Proportion of three year olds free from dental decay Persons 3 yrs % 2012/13 216 94.4 89.2 87.3 0.0 98.7 -

3 Incisor caries prevalence in three year olds Persons 3 yrs % 2012/13 9 3.8 4.2 4.2 16.1 0.0 -

4Prevalence of obesity among children in Reception, 5-

years data combinedMale 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 9.3 9.5 9.9 14.5 5.7 -


years data combinedFemale 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 7.7 8.8 9.1 12.5 4.6 -


years data combinedPersons 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 8.5 9.2 9.5 13.5 5.1 -


years data combined: WhitePersons 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 8.0 8.9 9.0 12.3 4.7 -


years data combined: AsianPersons 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 9.3 9.7 10.1 16.4 4.1 -


years data combined: BlackPersons 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 18.0 18.1 15.9 32.3 7.4 -


years data combined: Most deprived quintilePersons 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 10.4 11.1 11.7 15.5 8.1 -


years data combined: Second most deprived quintilePersons 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 9.7 10.2 10.4 13.6 6.8 -


years data combined: Average deprived quintilePersons 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 7.6 8.5 9.0 12.6 5.4 -


years data combined: Second least deprived quintilePersons 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 5.4 7.3 7.6 12.9 3.2 -


years data combined: Least deprived quintilePersons 4-5 yrs %

2012/13 -

16/170 5.8 6.4 6.5 12.4 3.2 -

Compared

to 5 years

ago


National breakdown

Unit type of

Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

Public Health England has designated that the ‘Prevalence

of Obesity Measures’ cannot be compared in a national

breakdown, but we have added them here to give some

indications of potential areas, and cohorts, of concern.

39

Healthy Weight, Healthy Nutrition – Spines (2)

15 Hospital admissions for dental caries (0-4 years) Persons 0-4 yrs per 100,0002014/15 -

16/1743 125.5 292.0 311.6 25.3 1144.8 -

16 Reception: Prevalence of severe obesity Persons 4-5 yrs % 2016/17 38 1.8 2.3 2.4 4.7 0.9 -

17 dmft (decayed, missing or filled teeth) in five year olds Persons 5 yrsmean dmft

per child2016/17 0 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.9 0.4 -

18 Reception: Prevalence of overweight Persons 4-5 yrs % 2016/17 275 13.2 13.7 13.0 8.9 16.7

194.02 - Proportion of five year old children free from

dental decay Persons 5 yrs % 2016/17 385 80.4 73.3 74.7 52.9 87.1 -

20Children with one or more decayed, missing or filled

teeth Persons 5 yrs % 2016/17 0 19.6 26.7 25.3 47.1 13.0 -

21 Reception: Prevalence of obesity Persons 4-5 yrs % 2016/17 170 8.2 9.7 9.7 13.5 4.8

22 Reception: Prevalence of healthy weight Persons 4-5 yrs % 2016/17 1624 78.0 75.8 76.4 70.5 83.5

23 Reception: Prevalence of underweight Persons 4-5 yrs % 2016/17 13 0.6 0.7 1.0 2.9 0.2

24 Participation rate: Reception Persons 4-5 yrs % 2016/17 2045 96.6 95.9 95.9 79.7 100.0

25 Reception: Prevalence of overweight (including obese) Persons 4-5 yrs % 2016/17 445 21.4 23.3 22.7 28.2 15.0

40

Healthy Weight, Healthy Nutrition - Matrix

Tre

nd


- DMFT in 3 year olds- Incisor Caries prevalence in 3 year olds- Reception: Prevalence of overweight - 4.02 - Proportion of five year old children free from dental decay- Children with one or more decayed, missing or filled teeth - Reception: Prevalence of healthy weight, overweight (incl. obese) and severe obesity

- Elective admissions (rate per 1000

population) aged under 5 years

- Proportion of 3 year olds free

from dental decay

- DMFT in 5 year olds- Reception: Prevalance of obesity

- Reception: Prevalence of

underweight


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

41

Summary of NCMP findings

42

Reception and Year 6 – Not Healthy Weight Preliminary 2018 results

Kursaal ward has the

highest proportion of

children with not

healthy weight

(including underweight

and overweight).

There are substantial

proportions in the East

locality of the Borough,

and as with previous

health maps, the West

locality shows the

lowest proportion,

although unusually

Belfairs has one of the

highest proportions of

unhealthy weight in the

Borough.

The proportions in this

map exclude children

not measures from the

calculations.

43

Unhealthy Weight and Deprivation

44

Ward Level Deprivation vs Unhealthy Weight

Those wards that

are part of the

ABS project are

denoted by red

points, those that

are not are blue.

A detailed

analysis report

on 2018’s NCMP

submission is

available

It contains

detailed maps for

Reception and

Year 6

separately,

school level

analysis and

QA/statistical

testing data.

Belfairs

Blenheim Park Chalkwell

Eastwood Park

Kursaal

Leigh

Milton

Prittlewell

Shoeburyness

Southchurch

St. Laurence

St. Luke's

Thorpe

Victoria

West Leigh

West Shoebury

Westborough

R² = 0.4703

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

No

t H

eal

thy

Weig

ht;

Rece

ptio

n a

nd Y

ear

6

IDACI 2015 Score

Child Deprivation vs % Not Healthy Weight; Ward

Level

http://seattle/people/Folders/Public Health/NCMP QA and analysis doc 0.2.pdf

Vaccinations Vaccination is one of the greatest breakthroughs in modern medicine. No other medical intervention has done more to save lives and improve quality of life. Because of vaccinations, polio has almost been eradicated, and smallpox wiped out. If it were still common, it would cause an estimated 2 million deaths every year around the world

45

46

Vaccinations - Spine

SNA


RAG -

Worst /

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG - Best/

BOB -

Highest

1 3.03iv - Population vaccination coverage - MenC Persons 1 yr % 2015/16 2034 96.7 96.7 95.5 75.1 98.9 -

23.03xviii - Population vaccination coverage - Flu (2-

4 years old) - historical methodPersons 2-4 yrs % 2016/17 2751 41.6 39.7 37.3 19.2 52.4 -

33.03vi - Population vaccination coverage - Hib /

Men C booster (5 years old)Persons 5 yrs % 2016/17 2161 95.4 94.3 92.7 71.1 98.4

43.03x - Population vaccination coverage - MMR for

two doses (5 years old)Persons 5 yrs % 2016/17 2038 90.0 90.9 87.7 57.1 96.2

53.03ix - Population vaccination coverage - MMR

for one dose (5 years old)Persons 5 yrs % 2016/17 2168 95.7 96.8 95.1 76.8 99.0

63.03viii - Population vaccination coverage - MMR

for one dose (2 years old)Persons 2 yrs % 2016/17 1978 93.7 93.4 91.6 69.8 97.5

73.03vii - Population vaccination coverage - PCV

boosterPersons 2 yrs % 2016/17 1991 94.3 93.5 91.4 67.7 97.5

83.03vi - Population vaccination coverage - Hib /

MenC booster (2 years old)Persons 2 yrs % 2016/17 1985 94.0 93.5 91.4 65.6 97.9

9 3.03v - Population vaccination coverage - PCV Persons 1 yr % 2016/17 2087 93.5 95.2 93.6 76.4 98.1

103.03iii - Population vaccination coverage - Dtap /

IPV / Hib (2 years old)Persons 2 yrs % 2016/17 2028 96.1 96.5 95.3 74.7 98.6

113.03iii - Population vaccination coverage - Dtap /

IPV / Hib (1 year old)Persons 1 yr % 2016/17 2088 93.5 95.3 93.5 73.7 98.7

123.03i - Population vaccination coverage - Hepatitis

B (2 years old)Persons 2 yrs % 2016/17 5 100.0 60.6 69.5 0.0 100.0 -

133.03i - Population vaccination coverage - Hepatitis

B (1 year old)Persons 1 yr % 2016/17 6 85.7 80.5 82.9 0.0 100.0 -

Compared

to 5 years

ago


National breakdown

Unit type

of Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

47

Vaccinations - Matrix T

rend


Population vaccination coverage;

- MMR for two doses (5 years old)

- MMR for one dose (2 years old)- PCV booster

Population vaccination coverage;

- PCV

- Dtap / IPV / Hib (1 year old)

Population vaccination coverage ;

- Flu (2-4 years old) - historical

method - Hib / Men C booster (5 years old)

- Hib / MenC booster (2 years old)

- Dtap / IPV / Hib (2 years old)

- Population vaccination coverage -

MMR for one dose (5 years old)


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

48

Vaccinations Southend coverage 2016/17

Hepatitis B (1 yr)

85.7%

1 year old 2 years old 5 years old

Dtap / IPV / Hib (2 yrs)

96.1%

Better than 95% target

Hepatitis B (2 yrs)

100%

Flu - historical method (2-4 yrs)

41.6%

Slightly lower than 65% target

PCV (1 yr)

93.5%


MenC (1 yr)

96.7%


Dtap / IPV / Hib (1 yr)

93.5%


Hib / Men C booster (5 yrs)

95.4%


MMR for 2 doses (5 yrs)

90%


MMR for one dose (2 yrs)

93.7%


PCV booster (2 yrs)

94.3%


Hib / MenC booster (2 yrs)

94%


MMR for 1 dose (5 yrs)

95.7%


Meets or exceeds target

Slightly lower than target

Much lower than target

Key

Not compared

NHS Digital’s

Interactive

Vaccination

Data Tool can

be found HERE

Icons designed by Freepik from Flaticon

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZTI3NWZhNzItMTIyZS00OWM2LTg0MzMtOGY5YTJjMGY0MjI1IiwidCI6IjUwZjYwNzFmLWJiZmUtNDAxYS04ODAzLTY3Mzc0OGU2MjllMiIsImMiOjh9

Health Wellbeing and Development Getting a good start in life, building emotional resilience and getting maximum benefit from education are the most important markers for good health and wellbeing throughout life; 80% of brain cell development takes place by age three.

49

50

Health, Wellbeing, Development - Spine

SNA


RAG -

Worst /

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG -

Best/

BOB -

Highest

1 Post-neonatal mortality Persons 28 d - 1 yr per 1000 2014 - 16 8 1.2 1.1 1.1 2.6 0.3 -

2Development assessments for young looked after children: %

aged <5 whose development assessments were up-to-datePersons 0-5 yrs % 2014 15 75.0 89.6 90.4 16.7 100.0 -

3 Health visitor 12 month review: % of children Persons < 1 yr % 2015/16 1797 86.8 86.1 73.7 1.6 98.0 -

4 Health Visitor review by 8 weeks: % births Persons 6-8 weeks % 2015/16 2123 99.7 86.9 79.9 0.0 100.0 -

5 Health Visitor new birth visits <14 days: % births Persons 0 yrs % 2015/16 1931 94.3 88.4 87.5 54.4 98.2 -

6 2.20xii - Newborn Hearing Screening - Coverage Persons < 1 yr % 2015/16 2282 99.6 99.0 98.7 95.1 100.0 -

7 Proportion of completed new birth visits (%) Persons <31 d % 2016/17 2093 100.0 98.5 97.8 79.5 100.0 -

82.05ii - Proportion of children aged 2-2½yrs receiving ASQ-3 as

part of the Healthy Child Programme or integrated reviewPersons 2-2.5 yrs % 2016/17 1779 98.1 94.4 91.7 20.1 100.0 -

9Looked after children aged <5: Rate per 10,000 population aged

<5Persons 0-4 yrs

per

10,0002016/17 60 52.6 54.8 40.7 134.7 0.0 -

101.02i - School Readiness: % of children with free school meal

status achieving good level of development Male 5 yrs % 2016/17 92 54.4 48.9 48.6 35.9 62.7


status achieving good level of development Female 5 yrs % 2016/17 109 67.3 64.3 64.6 48.4 80.2


status achieving good level of development Persons 5 yrs % 2016/17 201 60.7 56.3 56.7 44.0 100.0

131.02i - School Readiness: % of children achieving good level of

development Male 5 yrs % 2016/17 742 67.2 63.8 64.0 54.1 73.7


development Female 5 yrs % 2016/17 885 81.1 77.6 77.7 67.9 85.0


development Persons 5 yrs % 2016/17 1627 74.1 70.6 70.7 60.9 78.9

Compared

to 5 years

ago


National breakdown

Unit

type of

Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

51

Health, Wellbeing, Development - Matrix

Tre

nd


- Post-neonatal mortality

- Development assessments for

young looked after children: % aged <5 whose development assessments

were up-to-date

- Looked after children aged <5:

Rate per 10,000 population aged <5

- Newborn Hearing Screening - Coverage - Proportion of completed new birth visits

(%)

- Proportion of children aged 2-2½yrs receiving ASQ-3 as part of the Healthy

Child Programme or integrated review

- School Readiness across Sex and

Free School Meals eligible cohorts


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

Early Education & Early Years Foundation Stage The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) sets standards for the learning, development and care of children from birth to 5 years old. All schools and Ofsted-registered early years providers must follow the EYFS, including childminders, preschools, nurseries and school reception classes.

52

53

EYFS - Spine SNA

Numerator Value Value AvgWorst/

lowest Range

Best/

highest

1 EYFS: Average Points Score Both <5yo % 2016/17 N/A 36 34 34 32 38 Improving/HiBImprove Similar

2 EYFS: Average Points Score (gap) Both <5yo % 2016/17 N/A 3 2 2 4 1 Similar/LiBSimilar Worse

3EYFS: Percent achieving at least expected level across

all ELGs Both <5yo % 2016/17 1601 73 69 69 59 78 Improving/HiB

Improve Similar

4EYFS: Percent achieving at least expected level across

all ELGs (gap)Both <5yo % 2016/17 149 15 15 15 20 10 Falling/LiB

Failing Similar

5 EYFS: Percent achieving a good level of development Both <5yo % 2016/17 1627 74 70 71 61 79 Improving/HiBImprove Similar

6EYFS: Percent achieving a good level of development

(gap)Both <5yo % 2016/17 144 14 14 14 19 8 Falling/LiB

Failing Worse

7Achieving at least expected across all prime areas of

learning Both <5yo % 2016/17 1803 82 79 79 71 89 Improving/HiB

Improve Similar

8Achieving at least expected across Communication and

Language (C&L) Both <5yo % 2016/17 1864 85 82 82 73 93 Improving/HiB

Failing Similar

9Achieving at least expected across Physical

Development (PD) Both <5yo % 2016/17 1968 90 87 87 78 94 Improving/HiB

Improve Similar

10Achieving at least expected across Personal, Social and

Emotional Development (PSED) Both <5yo % 2016/17 1924 88 85 85 77 92 Improving/HiB

Improve Similar

11Achieving at least expected across all specific areas of

learning Both <5yo % 2016/17 1621 74 70 70 59 79 Improving/HiB

Improve Similar

12 Achieving at least expected across Literacy Both <5yo % 2016/17 1667 76 72 73 62 84 Improving/HiBFailing Similar

13 Achieving at least expected across Mathematics Both <5yo % 2016/17 1768 81 77 78 69 89 Improving/HiBImprove Similar

14Achieving at least expected across Understanding the

World Both <5yo % 2016/17 1915 87 83 83 73 92 Improving/HiB

Improve Similar

15Achieving at least expected across Expressive Arts and

Design Both <5yo % 2016/17 1954 89 86 87 75 94 Improving/HiB

Improve Similar

Matrix -

Trend

Matrix -

Comp

Change over

timeTrendIndicator Period

National breakdownUnit type

of Value

Southend

Sex Age

This spine chart only highlights a selection of the

indicators for EYFS. A spine chart containing further low

level breakdown by specific goals, outcomes and

cohort groups is available on request.

54

EYFS - Matrix T

rend


- EYFS: Average Points Score (gap)

- EYFS: Percent achieving a good level of

development (gap) - EYFSP At least the expected standard in

all ELGs: Teacher assessments by SEN

provision - with SEN but without statement (female)

- EYFSP At least the expected standard in all ELGs: teacher assessments by ethnicity;

Black (male)

- EYFSP At least the expected standard in all ELGs: Teacher assessments by free

school meals - eligible (male)

- EYFS: Average Points Score (gap)


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

55 Icons designed by Freepik and fjstudio from Flaticon

Early Years Foundation Stage 2017

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

1,0

44

1,0

80

1,1

24

1,0

90

1,0

91

1,1

09

1,1

09

1,1

23

1,1

52

1,1

05

2,153 2,189 2,247 2,242 2,196

Number of Children

Female

Male

Person

33.1

35.0

36.3 36.5 36.2

32.8

33.8 34.3 34.5 34.5

32.0

33.0

34.0

35.0

36.0

37.0

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Ave. Points Score - Person

Southend National Ave.

2.7

3.0

2.6 2.7 2.7

2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Ave. Points Score - Gap


In Southend

there were

1,091 girls

and 1,105

boys taking

Early Years

Foundation

Stage in

2016/17

Girls scored on average

37.6 points….

……whilst boys

scored 34.9……

.....with the average points gap of 2.7, which is

greater than the national average of 2.4.

56

Early Years Foundation Stage 2016/17 –

2017/18

Achieving at least the expected level across the seven areas

(2017/18):

82.1

89.6

87.6

75.9

80.5

87.2

89.0

17.9

10.4

12.4

24.1

19.5

12.8

11.0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Communication & Language

Physical Development

Personal, Social & EmotionalDevelopment

Literacy

Mathematics

Understanding the World

Expressive Arts & Design

Achieving or exceeding the expected level

Not achieving the expected level

44.9%

61.6% 68.5% 71.1% 74.1%

51.7% 60.4%

66.3% 69.3% 70.7%

40.0%

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

% Achieving a Good Level of Development- Person


14.7%

19.5%

15.6% 16.7%

14.0%

16.0% 16.3% 15.6%

14.7% 13.7%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

% Achieving a Good Level of Development - Gap


1,627 Southend children achieved a Good Level of

Development (74.1%), which is considerably better than the

England average (70.7%).

However, the gap in performance between girls and boys in

Southend is greater (14.0%) than the national average

(13.7%).

Performance in Literacy (75.9%), Mathematics (80.5%) and

Communication & Language (82.1%) are considerably lower than

the other four areas for Southend children

57

Early Years Foundation Stage 2017/18

You can also

find additional

information on

the breakdown

of EYFS

assessment in

a tool located

It shows ward

level results

for each Early

Learning Goal

and Area of

Learning, as

well as the

overall ‘Good

Level of

Development’

(GLD) score.

http://seattle/people/Folders/Learning/Assessment/EYFS 2018 Summary.xlsx

58

Early education

“The evidence on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in the first three years indicates that

high-quality ECEC can benefit children’s cognitive, language and social development in both the

short and long-term for both the general population (Melhuish et al., 1990; NICHD, 2000) and for

children from disadvantaged home backgrounds more specifically (e.g. Ramey et al., 2000).”

(Study of Early Education and Development (SEED): Impact Study on Early Education Use and Child Outcomes up to Age Three,

Research report, July 2017, Edward Melhuish, Julian Gardiner & Stephen Morris, University of Oxford)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-education-use-and-child-outcomes-up-to-age-3

There are three elements to publically funded childcare provision for under-five year olds.

• All three and four year olds are entitled to 15 hours of free childcare for 38 weeks (Universal

Entitlement).

• Some working parents of three and four year olds are entitled to an additional 15 hours of free

childcare for 38 weeks (Extended Entitlement).

• Some two year olds are entitled to 15 hours of free childcare for 38 weeks, based on their

parents economic situation (2 Year Old Funding).

https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs

59

Early education 2 year olds benefitting from funded early education

The Department for Education publish statistics on the percentage of two year olds believed to be

eligible for funded early education who are in fact benefitting from that service. The estimated number

of children eligible for funding is derived from data supplied by the Department for Work and Pensions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/705068/LAIT.xlsm

Local

Authority

% 2 year olds

benefitting from

funded early

education, 2017

Compared to all English Local Authorities

Rank

(1 = BEST)

Quintile

(1 = BEST)

Plymouth 90% 13 of 152 1st Quintile (Best 20%)

Poole 85% 20 of 152 1st Quintile (Best 20%)

Swindon 79% 38 of 152 2nd Quintile

Telford and

Wrekin 79% 38 of 152 2nd Quintile

Isle of Wight 76% 57 of 152 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

East Sussex 76% 57 of 152 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Bournemouth 72% 79 of 152 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Medway 67% 99 of 152 4th Quintile

Kent 66% 105 of 152 4th Quintile

Sheffield 64% 115 of 152 4th Quintile

Southend-on-

Sea 62% 121 of 152 5th Quintile (Worst 20%)

Only 62% of Southend’s two year olds believed to be eligible

actually benefited from funded early education in 2017.

Southend ranks 121st out of 152 English Local Authorities

(where 1 = best), and is the worst performing authority in its

statistical neighbour group.

From an initial 51% in 2015, take up of the

funding increased to 64% in 2016, but then fell to

62% in 2017.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/705068/LAIT.xlsm

60

Early education 3 and 4 year olds benefitting from funded early education

Local

Authority

Percentage take

up of 3 and 4 year

olds benefiting

from some free

early education,

2017

Compared to all English Local Authorities

Rank

(1 = BEST)

Quintile

(1 = BEST)

Telford and

Wrekin 101% 14 of 152 1st Quintile (Best 20%)

Kent 97% 53 of 152 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Isle of Wight 97% 53 of 152 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

East Sussex 97% 53 of 152 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Bournemouth 96% 72 of 152 3rd Quintile (Middle 20%)

Sheffield 95% 85 of 152 4th Quintile

Swindon 95% 85 of 152 4th Quintile

Plymouth 95% 85 of 152 4th Quintile

Southend-on-

Sea 94% 96 of 152 4th Quintile

Medway 93% 102 of 152 4th Quintile

Poole 91% 118 of 152 4th Quintile

94% of Southend’s estimated number of 3

and 4 year olds benefitted from free early

years education in 2017, which saw Southend

ranked as 96nd out of 152 local authorities

(where 1 = best), Southend is towards the

bottom of its neighbour group.

At the national level, the take up of early funding

amongst 3 and 4 year olds has been stable at

95% since 2012. Southend’s value has varied

between 94% and 96% during this time.

Note: Telford and Wrekin can have 101% take up as

the denominator is based upon a DfE estimate of

eligible ¾ years olds.

Children’s Services Metrics Children’s Services offer Early Help interventions and assistance, services for children in need, and oversee Child Protection and Care pathways for children subject to abuse, neglect and significant harm.

61

62

Children’s Services - Spine

Children's

SNA

Numerato

rValue Value Avg Worst Range Best

1 Rate of children in need at 31 March Persons < 18Rate per 10,000

children2016-17 0 358 350 360 831 175

2 Referrals started and finished the same day Persons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 1.0 1.4 2.9 0.0 50.8 -

3 SSWA timeliness 2: within 45 working days Persons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 63.8 79.6 82.4 51.8 99.2 -

4% of assessments completed where

going/being missing is a risk factorPersons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 6.1 2.6 3.1 0.0 8.2 -

5% of assessments completed where Child

sexual exploitation is a risk factorPersons < 18 % 2016-17 0 3.7 3.8 4.1 0.0 10.2 -

6 ICPC timeliness: within 15 working days Persons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 45.5 76.1 78.4 31.0 100.0

7Rate of children who were the subject of a

child protection plan at 31 MarchPersons < 18

Rate per 10,000

children2016-17 0 57 50 47 127 12

8Child protection plans which were a second or

subsequent planPersons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 29.3 22.2 18.3 36.1 0.0

9Rate of Looked After Children after at 31

MarchPersons < 18

Rate per 10,000

children2016-17 0.0 73.0 67.9 67.6 184.0 20.0

10 Percentage of LAC aged under 1 Persons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 8.1 9.3 8.5 3.3 16.8

11 Percentage of LAC aged 1 - 4 Persons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 31.9 26.1 23.5 9.1 41.3

12Percentage of LAC who had their teeth

checked by a dentistPersons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 89.5 82.2 84.3 15.3 100.0

13Percentage of LAC who had their annual

health assessmentPersons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 86.4 86.8 90.5 45.8 100.0

14Average Strengths and Difficulties

Questionnaire (SDQ) score per LACPersons < 18 Average 2016-17 0 16 15 14 20 0

15% of Children Looked After who had a missing

incident during the yearPersons < 18 % 2016-17 0.0 13.0 10.7 11.0 22.0 0.0 -

16Average number of missing incidents per

looked after child who went missingPersons < 18 Average 2016-17 0 7 5 5 14 2 -

Compared

to 5 years

ago


National breakdown

Unit type of

Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

63

Children’s Services - Matrix


Tre

nd

- ICPC timeliness: within 15 working days - Rate of children who were the subject of

a child protection plan at 31 March

- Child protection plans which were a second or subsequent plan

- Percentage of children who had their annual health assessment

- Referrals started and finished the

same day

- Percentage of LAC aged under 1 - Percentage of LAC aged 1 - 4

- Rate of children in need at 31 March- Rate of children looked after at 31 March

- Percentage of children who had their

teeth checked by a dentist - Average Strengths and Difficulties

Questionnaire (SDQ) score per child

- SSWA timeliness 2: within 45

working days


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

64

Children’s social care demand & the relationship with deprivation

Belfairs

Blenheim Park

Chalkwell

Eastwood Park

Kursaal

Leigh

Milton

Prittlewell

Shoeburyness

Southchurch

St Laurence

St. Luke's

Thorpe

Victoria

West Leigh

West Shoebury Westborough

R² = 0.9307

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Co

mbin

ed C

hid

lren's

Soci

al C

are C

ases

16/1

7

IMD 2015 Score

= ABS Wards

Includes number of

children:

- Subject to Child

Protection

- Allocated to

Children with

Disabilities

Team

- Subject of

contacts and

referrals

received by First

Contact Team

- Who were

Children in

Need

- Who were

Looked After

- Who were

subject of

Section 47

authorisations

There is a profound association between deprivation and children’s social care demand. The relationship is

very strong and significant, and reflects the extent to which material conditions of the child, family and wider

neighbourhood effect their need for specialist services, costly to individuals, communities and public providers.

65 Icons designed by Freepik, itim2101 and Smashicons, from Flaticon

Children’s Social Care Benchmarking

Data

For 2016/17 – Children in Need (CiN) and Child Protection

Plans (CPP) indicators

66 Icons designed by Freepik and Gregor Cresnar, from Flaticon

Children’s Social Care Benchmarking

Data

For 2016/17 – Looked After Children (LAC) indicators

Health Visitor Measures Health visitors play a crucial role in ensuring children have the best possible start in life, and lead delivery of the 0-5 elements of the Healthy Child Programme in partnership with other health and social care colleagues.

67

68

Health Visitor - Spine

SNA


RAG -

Worst /

BOB -

Lowest

Range

RAG -

Best/

BOB -

Highest

1C1: Mothers who received a first face-to-face antenatal contact with a

health visitor at 28 weeks or abovePersons 0-2 Count

2017-18

(provisional)841

2C2: % of births that receive a face to face New Birth Visit (NBV) within

14 days by a Health VisitorPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)2016 96.5% 87.5% 88.0% 33.2% 99.0%

3C3: % of face-to-face NBVs undertaken after 14 days, by a health

visitorPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)73 3.5% 11.0% 10.1% 65.9% 0.3%

4 % of face-to-face NBVs undertaken Persons 0-2 %2017-18

(provisional)2089 100.0% 98.5% 98.1% 89.3% 100.0%

5C8i: % of infants who received a 6-8 week review by the time they were

8 weeksPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)2056 97.8% 88.0% 83.3% 0.0% 100.0%

6C4: % of children who received a 12 month review by the time they

turned 12 monthsPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)1985 96.2% 85.9% 76.5% 5.5% 99.1%

7C5: % of children who received a 12 month review by the time they

turned 15 monthsPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)2029 98.6% 92.5% 83.4% 10.0% 99.8%

8 C6i: % of children who received a 2-2½ year review Persons 0-2 %2017-18

(provisional)1945 94.8% 85.2% 77.5% 16.9% 99.2%

9C6: Total number of children who received a 2-2½ year review in the

year for whom the ASQ3 was completedPersons 0-2 Count

2017-18

(provisional)1845 -

No historic data

available

10C6ii: % of children who received a 2-2½ year review using Ages and

Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3)Persons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)1845 96.7% 93.5% 90.3% 30.6% 100.0%

11C6iii: % of children who received a 2-2½ year review in the year who

were at or above the expected level in communication skillsPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)1653 89.6% 86.8% 72.4% 10.5% 96.4%

12C6iv: % of children who received a 2-2½ year review in the year who

were at or above the expected level in gross motor skillsPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)1731 93.8% 88.6% 75.8% 10.8% 98.2%

13C6v: % of children who received a 2-2½ year review in the year who

were at or above the expected level in fine motor skillsPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)1596 86.5% 85.6% 75.5% 10.7% 99.3%

14C6vi: % of children who received a 2-2½ year review in the year who

were at or above the expected level in problem solving skillsPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)1648 89.3% 90.4% 76.4% 11.1% 98.2%

15C6vii: % of children who received a 2-2½ year review in the year who

were at or above the expected level in personal-social skillsPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)1665 90.2% 89.0% 75.6% 10.7% 98.4%

16C6viii: % of children who received a 2-2½ year review in the year who

were at or above the expected level in all five areas of developmentPersons 0-2 %

2017-18

(provisional)1345 72.9% 74.0% 66.4% 8.0% 93.7%

Compared to 3

years ago

(or 2 years ago

if 3 is

unavailable)


National breakdown

Unit

type of

Value

Southend-on-Sea

Sex Age

69

Health Visitor - Matrix T

rend


% of infants who received;

- a 6-8 week review by the time they were 8 weeks

- a 2-2½ year review in the year who were at or

above the expected level in ;- communication skills

- gross motor skills

- fine motor skills

- problem solving skills- personal-social skills

- all five areas of development

- % of births that receive a face to face NBV within 14 days - % of face-to-face NBVs undertaken after 14 days

% of children who received;- a 12 month review by 12 months- a 12 month review by 15 months- a 2-2½ year review

- a 2-2½ year review using Ages and Stages Questionnaire

- % of face-to-face NBVs undertaken


Declin

ing S

imilar/N

o T

rend

Impro

ving

70

Healthy Child Programme - Overview

71 Icons designed by Freepik and fjstudio from Flaticon

Health Visitors Activities & Outcomes 2017-18

Below is an overview of measures taken by health visitors on the child’s pathway for the

Healthy Child Programme.

72

Health Visitors Activities & Outcomes 2017-18

2,051 children were expected to require a 2-2½ year review,

1,945 received one.

1,907 children turned 2½ in 2017-18 and had a 2-2½ year review,

1,845 children had their review completed using the ASQ-3

1,345 children were at or above the expected level of growth in

all five areas of development out of those 1,845 that completed

their 2-2½ review using the ASQ-3

89.6%

93.8%

86.5%

89.3%

90.2%

10.4%

6.2%

13.5%

10.7%

9.8%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Communication skills

Gross motor skills

Fine motor skills

Problem solving skills

Personal-social skills

Making or exceeding the expected level of growth

Not making the expected level of growth

91.7% 95.3% 94.8%

73.3% 77.6% 77.5%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Southend-on-Sea

92.2% 98.1%

96.7%

81.3% 89.4% 90.3%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Southend-on-Sea

72.9% 27.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Across all fivedevelopmental areas

Expected level of growth individually across the five areas of

development:

A detailed briefing on Health

Visitor measures can be found

http://seattle/people/Folders/Public Health/Papers/Health Visitors Activities and Outcomes 2017-18 V0.1.docx

Appendix 1 - Indices of Early Years measures and Deprivation

• The Early Years index uses the Early Years profile measures as determined by

Public Health England.

• The measures are all evenly weighted for the index.

• The included measures are: • Under 18 conceptions

• Low birth weight of term babies

• Reception: Prevalence of overweight (including obese)

• Smoking status at time of delivery (current method)

• A&E attendances (0-4 years)

• Emergency admissions (aged 0-4)

• Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in children (aged 0-4 years)

• Population vaccination coverage - MMR for two doses (5 years old)

• Children with one or more decayed, missing or filled teeth

• Infant mortality

• Children achieving a good level of development at the end of reception

• Breastfeeding prevalence at 6-8 weeks after birth - current method

• Proportion of children aged 2-2½yrs offered ASQ-3 as part of the Healthy Child Programme or integrated review

• Index of Multiple Deprivation methodology can be found here

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464485/English_Indices_of_Deprivation_2015_-_Technical-Report.pdf

Early Years (age 0-5) Joint Strategic Needs Assessment · Introduction •This is the first...

Documents

Transcript of Early Years (age 0-5) Joint Strategic Needs Assessment · Introduction •This is the first...