Norfolk’s Child Poverty Needs Assessment April 2015 – Version 3.0

Supported by BIPS Page 1 of 80

CONTENTS 1 Summary 3

1.1 Key findings 3 1.2 Recommendations 5

2 Introduction 7 2.1 Purpose of Norfolk’s Child Poverty Needs Assessment 7 2.2 The Child Poverty Act 2010 9 2.3 The Child Poverty headline measure 10 2.4 Partnership landscape in Norfolk 11 2.5 Statement on data 11 2.6 Reviewing the Needs Assessment 12

3 Child poverty 13 3.1 Child poverty – the national headline data 13 3.2 Child poverty –the headline data for Norfolk 14 3.3 Child poverty forecast nationally 17

4 Norfolk population 19 4.1 Age structure 19 4.2 Population projections 19 4.3 Vulnerable groups 20

5 Financial support 23 5.1 Economic activity 23 5.2 Earnings 23 5.3 Workless households 24 5.4 Economic deprivation indices 25 5.5 Benefits 30

6 Parental employment and skills 36 6.1 Skills 36 6.2 Labour market 37 6.3 Disability and employment 40 6.4 Childcare costs 43

7 Life chances 45 7.1 Education 45 7.2 Child health & wellbeing 58

8 Place 66 8.1 Housing 66 8.2 Homelessness 68 8.3 Fuel poverty 71 8.4 Access 73 8.5 Rural deprivation 76 8.6 Safety 76

9 Concluding remarks 79

Supported by BIPS Page 2 of 80

1 Summary 1.1 Key findings The situation for children in the UK is getting worse - for the first time in more than 17 years, child poverty in the UK has increased in absolute terms, with the poorest areas being hit hardest. Children living in poverty in the UK are more likely to die in the first year of life; be born small; be bottle fed; be exposed to second-hand smoke; become overweight; perform poorly at school; die in an accident; become a young parent; and to die earlier. Children who have grown up in disadvantaged conditions are more likely to face recurring disadvantage that is harmful to their health, wellbeing and life chances as adults, such as being less likely to be in work; to live in a decent home; to earn a decent wage; and to report good health and wellbeing. 1 Despite improvements in the headline data, commentators suggest that the decrease in the estimated number of children in relative income poverty was largely due to the fall of the poverty line rather than an improvement in their lives. Norfolk’s Child Poverty Needs Assessment gives a picture of the extent and reasons for child poverty in Norfolk and suggests where there are issues that need to be addressed. The key findings of this assessment set out where Norfolk’s young people appear to suffer disadvantage and suggests areas where the wider partnership of agencies and organisations in Norfolk need to work together to improve the situation. Population

• Although Norfolk’s older population is growing at a faster rate, the numbers of children and young people are expected to rise steadily over the next 20 years.

• The proportion of under-16s in Norfolk’s population is lower than regionally and nationally.

• Norfolk’s children come from an increasingly diverse range of ethnic groups. • There are around 130 languages spoken as a first language other than English, by

Norfolk school children. Economic including financial support

• 16.3% of Norfolk children live in low-income families (18.6% nationally) – that is an estimated 27,300 Norfolk children.

• Norfolk’s economic activity rate is below the regional and national rates.

1 The Conversation - Taylor-Robinson D. and Barr B. (2014) Cuts to early years children’s services threaten the most disadvantaged. Available at: http://theconversation.com/cuts-to-early-years-childrens-services-threaten-the-most-disadvantaged-25280?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+9+April+2014&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+9+April+2014+CID_92730645e51f1dfbae40dd307618ae6a&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=Cuts%20to%20early%20years%20childrens%20services%20threaten%20the%20most%20disadvantaged

Supported by BIPS Page 3 of 80

• Of the working age population who are recorded as being economically inactive, three in ten are disabled or registered for incapacity benefits.

• Average household income for Norfolk is lower than the regional and England averages, and women continue to be paid less than men.

• 10% of Norfolk children live in workless households (14.1% nationally) – that is an estimated 13,000 Norfolk children.

• Around 26,000 children in Norfolk are living in income deprived families. • The number of families receiving Tax Credits in Norfolk is around 60,200, with

72.8% of those families being in work (around 43,800 families) and the remaining 27.2% being out of work (around 16,400 families).

• Of the Norfolk families receiving Tax Credits, 18.1% were out of work lone parents (around 10,900 families).

• The proportion of children aged under 16 in Norfolk in receipt of Disability Living Allowance is higher than nationally.

• Over the last decade, the proportion of people in Norfolk with no qualifications has tended to be higher than the regional and national averages.

• Employment levels are higher than the national level, with unemployment rates being lower.

• Average weekly earnings continue to be well below regional and national averages. Life chances

• Deprivation can have a significant impact on educational attainment from a very early age, although not all children from deprived backgrounds will have lower attainment.

• In general, Norfolk children’s school attainment remains below regional and national levels.

• The high cost of childcare means that work is not paying for the poorest families. • The proportion of children eligible for free school meals has risen in all but two local

authority areas in Norfolk between 2013 and 2014. • Children from some BAME backgrounds are significantly more likely to be eligible for

free school meals, and this is especially notable in children from Gypsy/Roma backgrounds, and some black and mixed white and black backgrounds.

• There is a correlation between higher rates of absenteeism due to unauthorised absence, and higher levels of deprivation.

• Pupils who are excluded are more likely to have negative outcomes such as becoming NEET and are more likely to become involved in antisocial behaviour and youth crime, drug and alcohol abuse, and teenage pregnancy.

• The trend in Norfolk is higher proportions of children categorised as obese and overweight. Children from the most deprived areas are more likely to be obese than those from the least deprived areas.

• Infant deaths and low birth-weight have a correlation with deprivation and poverty. • Teenage conceptions in Norfolk are lower than England and declining but are still

higher than East of England.

Supported by BIPS Page 4 of 80

Place including housing issues • House prices in Norfolk are below regional and national averages, however Norfolk

has higher house prices in relation to income than nationally so low earners in Norfolk will tend to find access to housing more expensive than elsewhere.

• Latest data for 2014 Q2 stands at 100 families with children accepted as homeless, which is the highest level since 2008.

• Latest data for 2014 Q2 stands at 123 households with dependent children in temporary accommodation, which is the highest level since 2010 Q3.

• In 2012, around 35,000 households in Norfolk were estimated to be in fuel poverty. • About 19% of households in Norfolk have no car and there are some rural hotspots

where access to services is extremely problematic. • The most deprived rural areas of Norfolk are characterised by high levels of

unemployment and high levels of limiting long-term illness. • Only around 46% of Norfolk households are within 30 minutes of a hospital using

public transport or by walking. • During 2013/14, there were around 6,300 domestic violence and abuse incidents

reported to the police in Norfolk, which had a child associated with the incident. • In 2013, children aged 0-15 had the highest rate of KSI pedestrian road casualties

and one of the highest rates for pedestrian casualties of all severities.

1.2 Recommendations Poverty for children and young people has a detrimental affect on their life chances, and can be closely correlated to a number of other features of poor health and wellbeing including lower educational attainment, poorer housing, more likelihood of being unintentionally injured, drinking or taking drugs, and becoming pregnant when a teenager. The following recommendations suggest that the issues are complex and interrelated, and that a partnership approach is required to make the greatest impact. Economic / employment

• Better paid job opportunities – encourage new employment to the area. • Provide help and support to raise the level of skills and aspiration in Norfolk. • Provide more help and support to those people who would otherwise face difficulties

finding or maintaining employment. Financial support

• Support those families whose benefit entitlement has changed so they are able to maximise their take up of benefits.

• Focus on families with multiple needs to ensure they are able to maximise available support.

• Effectively support young carers to minimise any loss of opportunities. • Identify priority localities for support based on a range of partnership information.

Supported by BIPS Page 5 of 80

Life chances • Continue to work to improve educational attainment and skills of all young people. • Ensure Children’s Centres and other early years provision provide the most

vulnerable children with good quality pre-school education, to improve school readiness.

• Continue to work to reduce levels of teenage conception as well as to improve the support to teenage families. Place / environment

• Support initiatives to improve the quality of housing across the county to ensure young people are not disadvantaged in developing their potential by poor home environments.

• Recognise and tackle pockets of rural poverty in the county, recognising the patterns of poverty in rural compared to urban poverty are different.

Supported by BIPS Page 6 of 80

2 Introduction

2.1 Purpose of Norfolk’s Child Poverty Needs Assessment The aim of Norfolk’s Child Poverty Needs Assessment (CPNA) is to provide the evidence and context for developing Norfolk’s strategic approach to tackling child poverty. By examining various measures that make up a wider and richer picture of child poverty, the CPNA helps to give a greater understanding of the distribution and drivers of child poverty in Norfolk and where possible, how it varies across local areas. Research shows that children who grow up in poverty face a greater risk of having poor health, being exposed to crime and failing to reach their full potential in life. With the associated costs of tackling these issues, child poverty can impact significantly on public finances as well as having a negative effect on individuals and communities. Poverty is often intergenerational and can become entrenched through an ongoing cycle of disadvantage, low educational achievement and economic inactivity. While some children who grow up in low-income households thrive, many others do not, growing up with limited potential to earn the money needed to support their own families in adulthood. Tackling child poverty will improve the childhood experiences of many children, who will then experience greater opportunities and social inclusion. As a result, these children should have better outcomes, particularly health and educational attainment, in childhood and beyond. Breaking the cycle of disadvantage should therefore have important benefits for future generations. The Child Poverty Act 20102 requires a local authority to prepare and publish an assessment of the needs of children living in poverty in its area3. A needs assessment is a key driver to addressing child poverty within a local area as it builds a shared understanding of the issues and demonstrates the extent and nature of the local challenges. This is crucial to focusing attention and mobilising action on child poverty within the local authority and across wider partners. The Act also states that responsible local authorities should cooperate with partners in preparing a joint child poverty strategy for the local area4. Norfolk’s CPNA will help provide:

• An understanding of the key drivers of child poverty in Norfolk and the links with local service provision.

• A deeper understanding of the characteristics of families with children living in poverty in Norfolk and where in the county they are located.

2 Child Poverty Act 2010 Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/9/contents 3 Child Poverty Act 2010 (Part 2, Section 22) 4 Child Poverty Act 2010 (Part 2, Section 23)

Supported by BIPS Page 7 of 80

• An understanding of relevant local service provision in Norfolk and local organisations’ ability to address child poverty.

• A better understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to tackling child poverty in Norfolk.

• A solid foundation for the development and ongoing support of Norfolk’s Child Poverty Strategy.

• Inform the Health and Wellbeing Board and local Joint Commissioners of the needs of Norfolk’s children and families.

Norfolk’s CPNA draws on data from a number of measures that most closely reflect the drivers of child poverty that can be influenced by the local authority and its partners, with the headline measure being the proportion of children living in low-income families5. The Government’s Child Poverty Strategy 2014-176 identifies groups of children considered to be especially vulnerable to poverty:

• Children in one-parent families • Children in larger families (three or more children) • Children with a disabled parent • Children of some BAME groups • Children of gypsy, Roma, traveller or Irish heritage • Children with parents with a drug/alcohol dependency • Looked after children • Children of offenders • Teenage parents • Children cared for by family and friends carers (kinship carers) • Refugees

Children in these groups may be disproportionately affected by socio-economic disadvantage, often experiencing multiple disadvantages and at greater risk of poverty. These may often be small groups not captured in broad poverty statistics, although we aim to comment on these groups throughout this report where possible to get as full a picture as possible about levels of poverty among vulnerable groups.

5 The Child Poverty measure has recently been renamed by Government as Children in Low-Income Families measure, but the definition currently remains unchanged – it includes children who are living in families either in receipt of out-of-work benefits or in receipt of tax credits with reported income less than 60% of median income. The local child poverty measure includes all dependent children under the age of 20. 6 HM Government (June 2014) Child Poverty Strategy 2014-17. See Annex D. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/child-poverty-strategy-2014-to-2017

Supported by BIPS Page 8 of 80

2.2 The Child Poverty Act 2010 The 2010 Child Poverty Act enshrines in law the coalition government's commitment to the former government’s pledge to eradicate child poverty by 2020. The Act places a duty on both central and local government to develop child poverty strategies and it outlines the following key expectations of local authorities:

• To work with partners to reduce and mitigate the effects of child poverty within the responsible local authority area.

• To have regard to central government guidance. • To prepare and publish a local child poverty needs assessment. • To prepare a joint child poverty strategy, which must reflect the local child

poverty needs assessment. • In developing the joint child poverty strategy, the authority must consult with

children, parents, and with other bodies as appropriate. • To ensure that their Sustainable Communities Strategy reflects the duties

under the Child Poverty Act, the local child poverty needs assessment and the joint child poverty strategy for the area.

The Act requires the Government to meet the four challenging UK-wide targets by 2020: Relative poverty To reduce the proportion of children who live in relative low income to less than ten per cent. This target measures those families that are poor compared with the rest of society and is firmly in line with the best in Europe. Combined low income and material deprivation To reduce the proportion of families who live in material deprivation and have low incomes to less than five per cent. This target measures the living standards of families experiencing the effects of poverty more widely. Persistent poverty To reduce the proportion of children that experience long periods of poverty. Research demonstrates that long periods of poverty have a damaging effect on a child’s life chances and that the risk of escaping poverty decreases the longer the period in poverty. The target will be set in secondary legislation when the required data is available. Absolute poverty To reduce the proportion of children who live in absolute low income to less than five per cent. This target measures the income of families against a level held constant over time. The Act requires government to report to Parliament each year on progress and creates a new expert Child Poverty Commission to publish advice and encourage progress.

Supported by BIPS Page 9 of 80

The Act places a duty on the County Council to carry out a child poverty needs assessment and undertake a review at least annually. The aim of the needs assessment is to enable a deeper understanding of the characteristics of poor families in Norfolk and to identify the key drivers of poverty that must be addressed. Following the needs assessment, a stand-alone child poverty strategy must be produced based on the outcome of the needs assessment. On 5 April 2011, Government published the UK’s first national child poverty strategy, which set out the actions it would take between 2011 and 2014 to meet the aim of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020. After consulting on the draft strategy for the period between 2014 and 2017, the UK’s second national strategy for reducing child poverty was published on 26 June 20147. The strategy sets out the action Government will take from 2014-17 to tackle child poverty through:

• Supporting families into work and increasing their earnings; • Improving living standards; and • Preventing poor children becoming poor adults through raising their

educational attainment. The local strategy document should take account of the national child poverty strategy and both the local and the national strategies must be reviewed on an ongoing basis and refreshed at least every three years.

2.3 The Child Poverty headline measure Under the Child Poverty Act 2010 a child is defined as being in relative poverty if they live in a household with an income of less than 60 per cent of the national median income. However, this data is not available at below regional level and local authorities need such data at LSOA level to be able to compare smaller areas. This is why we use the proxy measure of Children Living in Low-Income Families (formerly the Child Poverty measure or National Indicator 116) – this is based on administrative tax credits and benefit data sources and includes children who are living in families either in receipt of out-of-work benefits or in receipt of tax credits with reported income less than 60 per cent of median income. These statistics are published on an annual basis and are the most comprehensive at the local level, providing the best possible estimates of child poverty. The local child poverty measure includes all dependent children under the age of 20. It is essential that this headline measure of relative income remains one of the key indicators of child poverty. However, we know that there are many other contributing factors, such as health and education, which contribute to life-chances and outcomes, and the only way to show whether things are getting better for the poorest

7 UK Child poverty strategy 2014 to 2017. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/child-poverty-strategy-2014-to-2017

Supported by BIPS Page 10 of 80

children is to examine these multiple indicators of poverty. We go on to examine a number of measures that make up a wider and richer picture of child poverty in later chapters of this report. Government recognises this need to use other dimensions alongside income to develop better measures of child poverty, to identify those children most severely affected. Seven interrelated dimensions in addition to income and material deprivation have been suggested by Government to help capture the full experience of growing up in poverty and the barriers to getting out of poverty – worklessness; unmanageable debt; poor housing; parental skill level; access to quality education; family stability; and parental health. However, at the time of writing this latest version of Norfolk’s CPNA, the child poverty measure remains unchanged.

2.4 Partnership landscape in Norfolk Norfolk’s Health & Wellbeing Board provides the multi-agency governance of Norfolk’s Child Poverty Strategy. This involves maintaining a collective oversight over the issue of child poverty and monitoring the effectiveness of collective action to improve outcomes for Norfolk’s children and their families. Reducing child poverty needs to be a priority for a wide range of partnerships and individual agencies and organisations. Some of the key partnerships include: The Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), the Children and Young People Strategic Partnership, Norfolk’s Safeguarding Boards (for both children and adults), the Education Service Improvement Board, Norfolk’s Child Health & Maternity Board, Clinical Commissioning Groups, and the Voluntary and Community Sector Forum.

2.5 Statement on data The data contained in this document comes from a range of sources and are the most recent figures available to illustrate the current picture of needs in Norfolk. Much of the service-based data is sourced from service departments of the County Council, extracted from management information and national returns. Information and data also comes from national and local sources. Sources and dates of data have been acknowledged throughout the report. It is acknowledged that the CPNA will not include everything on children and young people in Norfolk, but it does contain the key information to present an accurate picture of child poverty in Norfolk. Additional information can be found on Norfolk Insight, which may deal with some areas in more detail. Norfolk’s CPNA is published in the JSNA in Norfolk Insight, the county’s Local Intelligence System and the host of Norfolk’s online JSNA. This is a public-facing website which presents key data for Norfolk and allows this to be downloaded (www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/jsna/youngpeople).

Supported by BIPS Page 11 of 80

2.6 Reviewing the Needs Assessment Norfolk’s CPNA provides an evidence base and analysis that improves understanding of the issues surrounding child poverty in Norfolk. It is therefore important to keep this evidence base as up to date and relevant as possible. Norfolk’s CPNA was last revised in May 2013. National guidance published in March 2010 suggests that the responsible local authority must, in each 12 month period, make arrangements for the partner authorities to review the needs assessment, consult such persons as it considers appropriate, and publish the results of that review in a manner it considers appropriate, and consider whether the needs assessment should be revised. Furthermore, the responsible local authority must revise the needs assessment within three years after it was first published or last revised and whenever it considers that it should be revised.

Supported by BIPS Page 12 of 80

3 Child poverty 3.1 Child poverty – the national headline data The situation for children in the UK is getting worse - for the first time in more than 17 years, child poverty in the UK has increased in absolute terms, with the poorest areas being hit hardest. Children living in poverty in the UK are more likely to die in the first year of life; be born small; be bottle fed; be exposed to second-hand smoke; become overweight; perform poorly at school; die in an accident; become a young parent; and to die earlier. Children who have grown up in disadvantaged conditions are more likely to face recurring disadvantage that is harmful to their health, wellbeing and life chances as adults, such as being less likely to be in work; to live in a decent home; to earn a decent wage; and to report good health and wellbeing. 8 The 2010 Child Poverty Act enshrines in law the coalition government's commitment to the former government’s pledge to eradicate child poverty by 2020. The Act places a duty on both central and local government to develop child poverty strategies to make sure this commitment is achieved. Rates of child poverty can only be reduced by first developing an evidence-base and needs assessment to enable a deeper understanding of the characteristics of poor families and thereby identify the key drivers of poverty that must be addressed. It is widely recognised that rates of child poverty in parts of the UK continue to be unacceptably high – around 2.56 million children live in poverty in the UK9 - and that it is unlikely that child poverty will be eradicated by 2020. The number of children in low-income families in the UK decreased by 185,000 between 2011 and 2012, from 2.75 million in 2011 to 2.56 million in 2012. The vast majority of this decrease came from a fall of around 170,000 children in families receiving tax credits with an income less than 60% of the median. However, this does not necessarily imply that the incomes of these families have improved.

8 The Conversation - Taylor-Robinson D. and Barr B. (2014) 9 HMRC Child Poverty 2012 statistics. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/personal-tax-credits-children-in-low-income-families-local-measure-2012-snapshot-as-at-31-august-2012

Supported by BIPS Page 13 of 80

3.2 Child poverty –the headline data for Norfolk The rate of children (all dependent children aged under 20) living in low-income families for Norfolk in 2012 is estimated at 16.3% - this equates to around 27,300 Norfolk children. Around 24,400 of these children are aged under 16. Norfolk’s rate is better (lower) than the England average of 18.6%, but worse (higher) than the East of England regional average of 15.1% (Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1).10 Norfolk saw a similar decrease to the national rates from 2010 to 2011 (of around 0.5 percentage points), but a slowed improvement from 2011 to 2012 when compared nationally – Norfolk’s rate decreased by 1.0 percentage points compared with 1.5 percentage points nationally. Figure 3.1: Rate of children (all dependent children under 20) living in low-income families (estimated) for Norfolk local authorities, 2012

Source: HMRC Child Poverty 2012 statistics

10 HMRC Child Poverty 2012 statistics

Supported by BIPS Page 14 of 80

It is important to remember that the overall figure for Norfolk masks particular hotspots in the county where this is a more serious issue. Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk each have higher rates than the Norfolk average. Norwich has the highest number of children living in low-income families in the county, at an estimated 6,725. Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk each have almost 5,000 children living in low-income families. Even in Broadland, with the lowest rate in the county (8.7%), there are still an estimated 2,120 children living in low-income families. Table 3.1: Rate and number of children (all dependent children under 20) living in low-income families (estimated) for Norfolk local authorities, 2010 to 2012 Children living in

poverty Children living in low-income families

2010 2011 2012 Number % Number % Number % Breckland 4,035 15.6 4,045 15.5 3,755 14.4 Broadland 2,410 9.8 2,265 9.3 2,120 8.7 Great Yarmouth 5,055 24.2 5,095 24.6 4,875 23.5 KL&WN 5,440 18.6 5,075 17.3 4,910 16.6 North Norfolk 2,795 16.4 2,720 16.1 2,350 14.1 Norwich 7,150 29.1 6,965 27.9 6,725 26.3 South Norfolk 2800 11.4 2,815 11.4 2,555 10.3 Norfolk 29,685 17.8 28,980 17.3 27,290 16.3 East of England 209,255 16.5 206,280 16.2 194,380 15.1 England 2,367,335 20.6 2,319,450 20.1 2,153,985 18.6

Source: HMRC Child Poverty 2012 statistics There are 530 Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in Norfolk. LSOAs have between 1,000 and 3,000 people living in them with an average population of 1,500 people. These small geographical areas make it easier to identify small pockets of children living in low-income families that could be masked when looking at larger geographies such as district and borough areas. Figure 3.2 shows the proportions of children living in low-income families in Norfolk by LSOA, with the lighter coloured areas representing those LSOAs with lower rates and the darker coloured areas representing higher rates. This shows that children living in low-income families exists in all LSOAs across the county, to some extent. Similar maps for Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn are shown at Figure 3.3.

Supported by BIPS Page 15 of 80

Figure 3.2: Rate of children (all dependent children under 20) living in low-income families (estimated) for Norfolk LSOAs, 2012

Source: HMRC Child Poverty 2012 statistics Figure 3.3: Rate of children (all dependent children under 20) living in low-income families (estimated) for Norfolk LSOAs in Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, 2012

Source: HMRC Child Poverty 2012 statistics Of the 530 LSOAs in Norfolk, it is estimated that 176 have a higher proportion of children living in low-income families than the Norfolk average of 16.3%. The LSOA

Supported by BIPS Page 16 of 80

with the highest rate of children living in low-income families (53%) is part of Nelson (Great Yarmouth) ward. Generally speaking, the areas with higher rates of children living in low-income families in Norfolk are in the urban areas. It is also worth noting that despite some areas being perceived as wealthy, these areas may have pockets of children living in low-income families. For example, Holt in North Norfolk is thought to be an affluent area, yet part of Holt has 25.7% children living in low-income families (around 100 children). More detailed information at small geographical levels is available at HMRC and Norfolk Insight.11 There may be differences between the estimated level of income deprivation reported for a particular area as shown on the maps in Section 5.4 of this report, compared with the estimated level of children living in low-income families reported for the area shown on the maps in Section 3.2. Child deprivation and children living in low-income families are complex issues with many contributing factors and a level of deprivation (as measured by the IDACI) does not necessarily mean the same level of children living in low-income families (as measured by HMRC).

3.3 Child poverty forecast nationally Forecasting models suggest that, as things stand currently, legally-binding targets to reduce child poverty by 2020–21 will not be achieved. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has produced projections of how child poverty measures are likely to evolve in the UK between 2020–21 under current policies and forecasts about how the economy will evolve over this period. As in previous work, the IFS finds that the targets to reduce child poverty will be missed by a wide margin under current policies as cuts to benefits and tax credits for those of working age are brought in and a recovery in earnings increases the incomes of middle-income households by more than the incomes of the poor. This will be slightly offset by the introduction of Universal Credit, which will tend to make poverty increase less quickly. Up to 2015–16, child poverty increases quickly in the UK as a whole, from 17.4% to 21.0% (an increase of 500,000 children) using the relative low-income measure and from 19.5% to 23.4% (an increase of 600,000 children) using the absolute low-income measure. Thereafter, the relative child poverty rate remains fairly constant. The absolute low-income measure increases by 1.1 percentage points between 2015–16 and 2020–21.12 The Social Mobility and Child Poverty (SMCP) Commission is an advisory non-departmental public body of the Cabinet Office, the Department for Education and the Department for Work & Pensions and monitors the progress of government and

11 HMRC Child Poverty 2012 statistics. More detailed information is available at HMRC - https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/personal-tax-credits-children-in-low-income-families-local-measure-2012-snapshot-as-at-31-august-2012 and Norfolk Insight - http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/dataviews/view?viewId=151 12 IFS Briefing Notes (BN154) Child and working-age poverty in Northern Ireland over the next decade: an update (November 2014) Available at: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7448

Supported by BIPS Page 17 of 80

others in improving social mobility and reducing child poverty in the UK13. Recent research findings published by SMCP Commission used household survey data and tax-benefit modelling to forecast child poverty levels under a range of different scenarios for employment growth and earnings growth in the UK economy to 2020. In the central scenario (corresponding to the Office for Budget Responsibility's most recent forecasts for earnings and employment growth in its March 2014 Economic and Fiscal Outlook), the model forecasts that child poverty in 2020 on the relative Before Housing Costs poverty measure will be 21% – 3.5 percentage points higher than in 2011-12, and 11 percentage points above the target level of 10%. Meanwhile, absolute child poverty in 2020 is forecast to be just over 24% – 19 percentage points above the target level of 5%. The analysis incorporates all the changes to the tax and welfare system made in the 2010-15 Parliament (including Universal Credit, which is assumed to be fully rolled out by 2020), but does not include any additional cuts to Universal Credit or other benefits which might be announced after the 2015 general election (current plans are for £25bn of spending cuts, including £12bn of welfare cuts). The difference between the SMCP and IFS estimates appears to be largely due to the fact that SMCP assumes 100% take-up of means-tested benefits and Universal Credit, whereas the IFS model controls for non-take-up.14

13 Social Mobility and Child Poverty (SMCP) Commission. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/social-mobility-and-child-poverty-commission 14 Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (June 2014). Understanding the parental employment scenarios necessary to meet the 2020 Child Poverty Targets, p. 8. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/meeting-the-2020-child-poverty-targets

Supported by BIPS Page 18 of 80

4 Norfolk population This section aims to give an overview of the estimated numbers of children currently living in the county, along with projected growth over the next few years. The ethnicity of Norfolk’s school children is also considered.

4.1 Age structure Norfolk's population is estimated at 870,100 in mid-2013 – an increase of around 4,800 on the previous year. Over the last decade, Norfolk's population has increased by 6.7%, compared with an increase of 8.1% in the East of England region and 7.3% in England. Over this ten year period, in terms of broad age groups, numbers of children and young people in the county (aged 0-17) rose marginally, numbers of working age adults (aged 18-64) increased by around 17,000, and numbers of older people (aged 65 and over) increased by around 34,200 (20.6%). The estimates for mid-2013 confirm that Norfolk's population has a much older age profile than England as a whole, with 23.0% of Norfolk's population aged 65 and over, compared with 17.3% in England.15 There are an estimated 187,200 children and young people under the age of 20 living in Norfolk, equating to 21.5% of the county’s population. There are an estimated 146,300 children under the age of 16 living in Norfolk, equating to 16.8% of the county’s population. Norfolk has lower rates of children and young people (under 16s and under 20s) in the population than regionally and nationally.16

4.2 Population projections Projections based on trends in population growth suggest that over the next decade there is projected growth of 60,600 people in Norfolk – this is an increase of 7% which is below both the national projected increase of 7.2% and the East of England region projected increase of 8.7%. Norfolk's oldest age groups are projected to grow the quickest in the next decade – with the 75-84 year olds projected to increase by 32.9% and the 85 and overs projected to increase by 39.7%. Although numbers of children are also projected to increase, overall there is little change projected over the decade for younger adults and the middle aged. The age structure of the population varies across Norfolk's local authority areas, but in the main, Norfolk has an ageing population going forward.17 Looking further ahead to 2037, there is projected growth of 140,400 people in Norfolk – this is an increase of 16.2% which is similar to the national figure but below the East of England region projected increase of 20.1%.

15 Norfolk Insight (ONS mid-2013 population estimates), 2014 16 Norfolk Insight (ONS mid-2013 population estimates), 2014 17 Norfolk Insight (ONS mid-2012 population projections), 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 19 of 80

For both timescales, the largest increase in numbers is projected to be in South Norfolk, and the smallest increase in numbers is projected to be in Great Yarmouth. Norfolk's population is projected to exceed one million by 2036. By 2037, it is projected that there will be around 201,900 children and young people under the age of 20 living in Norfolk, equating to 20% of the county’s population – this is an increase of around 14,700 compared with the current population, which is an increase of 7.9% over the period. By 2037, it is projected that there will be around 159,100 children under the age of 16 living in Norfolk, equating to 15.8% of the population - this is an increase of around 12,800 compared the current population, which is an increase of 8.7% over the period.18

4.3 Vulnerable groups The term ‘vulnerable groups’ refers to people with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, although this is often extended (by Ofsted, for example) to incorporate groups known to be at higher risk of negative outcomes. This report aims to incorporate data and information throughout about groups of children considered to be especially vulnerable to poverty, including those from vulnerable groups. However, children from a BAME background, and children who are disabled or children of disabled parents are thought to be at higher risk of the longer term consequences of underachievement, such as being less likely to be economically active and at a greater risk of social isolation. Therefore, these two groups are considered in more detail here. Disability Patterns of childhood disability differ between sexes, with boys having a higher rate overall and more likely than girls to experience difficulties with physical coordination; memory, concentration and learning; and communication. Disabled children live in different personal situations from their non-disabled counterparts, and are more likely to live with low-income, deprivation, debt and poor housing. This is particularly the case for disabled children from BAME groups and lone-parent households. It is estimated that between 4,650 and 8,350 Norfolk children experience some form of disability, with younger children (in the 0 to 4 year age group) having a lower prevalence of mild disability than older children, and younger children (in the 0 to 4 year age group) having a higher prevalence of severe disability than older children. The Norfolk Register of Disabled Children and Young People is a database of children whose parents have agreed to place their child on the Register. It includes children from a wide range of disabilities from mild to significant or profound. March 2013 data shows there are around 1,120 children under the age of 19 on the Register, with around 45% of these aged 0-10 (80% of these are aged 5-10 years, and the highest numbers are in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk), and the remaining 55% aged 11-19 (66% of these are aged 11-15 years and the highest numbers are in

18 Norfolk Insight (ONS mid-2012 population projections), 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 20 of 80

Breckland). The relatively small number of children and young people on the Register compared to the estimated number shows that the majority of disabled people are not known to services. The top five most commonly diagnosed conditions currently on the Register are Autism, ADHD, Global Development Delay, Dyslexia and Sensory impairment.19 Ethnicity Table 4.1 indicates that Norfolk’s children come from a diverse range of ethnic groups.20 In January 2014 there is little variation compared with a year earlier – only the group containing those children described as White British has changed more than one percentage point. Table 4.1: Ethnic breakdown of Norfolk children, January 2014 compared with January 2013 DfE Higher Level Ethnic Sub-Categories

January 2014 January 2013 Number % %

White - British 96,153 86.97 88.04 Any Other White Background 5,666 5.13 4.48 Any Other Mixed Background 901 0.81 0.81 White and Asian 767 0.69 0.63 Any Other Ethnic Group 701 0.63 0.60 Black - African 618 0.56 0.49 Indian 596 0.54 0.50 White and Black African 596 0.54 0.49 White and Black Caribbean 565 0.51 0.49 Any Other Asian Background 449 0.41 0.37 Chinese 363 0.33 0.31 Bangladeshi 245 0.22 0.21 White - Irish 245 0.22 0.20 Gypsy/Roma 212 0.19 0.20 Any Other Black Background 211 0.19 0.17 Pakistani 101 0.09 0.10 Traveller of Irish Heritage 49 0.04 0.04 Black Caribbean 34 0.03 0.04 Refused/not obtained 2,081 1.89 1.83 Total on roll 110,553 100 100

Source: Norfolk School Census, January 2014

19 Norfolk County Council (May 2014) Norfolk Healthy Child Programme for Children and Young People (5-19 years old). Available at: http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/jsna/youngpeople 20 Data includes all pupils on roll at LA maintained schools, Academies and the Free School as at the 16th January 2014. Although the collection of ethnicity data doesn’t become mandatory until the academic year in which the pupil becomes 5, this could include pupils not yet of statutory school age (i.e. 2, 3 and 4 years olds) in nursery and reception classes. The data can also include students older than 18 being taught in sixth form year groups.

Supported by BIPS Page 21 of 80

There are around 130 languages spoken as a first language other than English, by Norfolk school children. Almost 8,650 Norfolk school children have a first language other than English, including around 5,900 primary school age children and around 2,700 secondary school age children.21

21 NCC Autumn 2014 School Census, October 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 22 of 80

5 Financial support This section presents a picture of family finance in Norfolk and considers how it impacts on family poverty. The benefit system has a crucial role to play in lifting families out of poverty and can have a positive impact on child poverty by increasing take-up by vulnerable groups and improve work incentives for workless households.

5.1 Economic activity Norfolk’s annual average economic activity rate between October 2013 and September 2014 was 77.1%, which means there were around 429,800 people of working age who were economically active in Norfolk. This is below the region (80.4%) and national (77.7%) rates. Of the 122,800 people (average of 22.9%) who were economically inactive (made up of students, people looking after the home or children, those temporarily or long-term sick, and those retired, for example) during the period October 2013 to September 2014, 87,600 did not want a job. Incapacity and disability accounts for a significant proportion (around 29%) of those who are not economically active within the working age population.22

5.2 Earnings The household average gross weekly pay for full-time workers in Norfolk for 2014 is £470.20, which remains below the region (£539.10) and national (£523.60) averages. Women continue to be paid less than men – full-time female workers earn on average £119.30 less than men in Norfolk, and this reflects a similar trend regionally and nationally. Similarly, average hourly pay (excluding overtime) for full-time workers in Norfolk (£11.54) remains below the region (£13.70) and national (£13.29) averages, and women continue to earn less per hour than men.23 Full-time workers tend to earn more gross weekly pay in South Norfolk (£525.20), Broadland (£511.60) and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (£479.40) than the Norfolk average. Average gross weekly pay in the other districts is below the Norfolk average, with Great Yarmouth being the lowest at £425.00. Annual median gross pay for all employee jobs in 2014 for Norfolk is £19,443, which is an increase of 0.6% on the previous year. This compares with £23,277 for the East of England (an increase of 0.5% on the previous year) and £22,354 for England (an increase of 0.8% on the previous year). There is a 22% difference in annual gross pay between South Norfolk, which has the highest level of pay (£21,532), and Great Yarmouth, which has the lowest level of pay (£17,621). The inequality is increasing, as Great Yarmouth has experienced a four per cent decrease in average pay on the previous year.24

22 Nomis – official labour market statistics, 2015 23 Nomis – official labour market statistics, 2015 24 ONS, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2015. Table 8.7a Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-337425

Supported by BIPS Page 23 of 80

Headline Gross Disposable Household Income (GDHI) in Norfolk has remained consistently below regional and national averages and the gap has tended to widen over time. Between 2001 and 2006 Norfolk’s GDHI per head fell against the UK but has increased again since to 90.8% of the UK figure in 2011.25

5.3 Workless households As well as being a source of income, work generally improves people’s well-being and mental and physical health, with positive implications for their children. Conversely, being out of work, especially for long periods of time, can have a negative impact on people’s confidence, relationships, health and well-being. Having one or both parents in work can contribute to eroding intergenerational cycles of poverty. Research has revealed a strong, positive association between parents’ occupational status and the probability that their children would gain A-Level qualifications. In addition, children of lone parents reported the benefits of parental employment, noting that the increased status associated with having a parent in paid work can increase their own self-esteem. The risks of poverty, material deprivation and wider disadvantage are much higher in families where no one works. For a child in a workless household, the risk of being in relative poverty is far higher than the risk for children in families where all adults work.26 The majority of children that live in workless households live with a lone parent27. A workless household is a household that contains at least one person aged 16 to 64, where no one aged 16 or over is in employment28. There are many reasons why an individual does not work, including being unemployed, retired, sick or disabled, caring for somebody, student, waiting for the results of a job application, have not yet started looking for work, or they do not need to work. The available data is for all children under the age of 16 and is not split by age band. The proportion of Norfolk children living in workless households in 2013 is 10%, which means that an estimated 13,000 children live in workless households. This has improved since 2011, when an estimated 19,000 children lived in workless households. Norfolk’s rate is below the regional (10.3%) and national (14.1%) rates.29 Sickness, both long-term and temporary, was the main reason given for not

25 Norfolk County Council (September 2013 update) Local Economic Assessment for Norfolk 26 HM Government – Department for Work and Pensions; Department for Education (April 2011). A new approach to child poverty: tackling the causes of disadvantage and transforming families’ lives pp. 23-24. Available at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/CM-8061.pdf 27 ONS (August 2012). Working and workless households, 2012 statistical bulletin. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/working-and-workless-households/2012/stb-working-and-workless-households-2012.html#tab-Children 28 ONS (September 2012). Workless households for regions across the UK, 2011. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_278300.pdf 29 ONS Workless Households 2013 statistics (Table C). Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-375762

Supported by BIPS Page 24 of 80

working by people aged 16-64 years living in workless households across all the regions of England.30 It is important to remember that the overall figure for Norfolk masks particular hotspots in the county where children living in workless households is a more serious issue. Breckland, Norwich and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk each have higher rates of children living in workless households than the Norfolk average, as detailed at Table 5.1. Since 2011, Breckland has gone from a relatively low rate of 5.6% to almost 21% in 2013 – an increase of around 3,200 in two years. Norwich has an estimated 4,400 children living in workless households, which is the highest number of all of the Norfolk local authority areas – this is a shift from 2011 when Great Yarmouth had the highest number. Table 5.1: Children living in workless households (estimated), 2013 Number % Breckland 4,230 20.7 Broadland sample too small to provide an estimate Great Yarmouth 1,020 5.7 King's Lynn & West Norfolk 2,720 13.0 North Norfolk sample too small to provide an estimate Norwich 4,400 19.4 South Norfolk sample too small to provide an estimate Norfolk 13,000 10.0 East of England 111,400 10.3 England 1,406,100 14.1 Source: ONS Workless Households 2013 statistics (Table C) Note: Figures may not equal due to rounding and small sample sizes

5.4 Economic deprivation indices The concept of deprivation consists of more than just poverty. Poverty is not having enough money to get by on whereas deprivation refers to a general lack of resources and opportunities. An area has a higher deprivation score than another one if the proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived is higher. An area itself is not deprived - it is the circumstances and lifestyles of the people living there that affect its deprivation score. And it is important to remember that not everyone living in a deprived area is deprived, and that not all deprived people live in deprived areas. Children that grow up in poverty face a greater risk of being effected by issues associated with deprivation, such as fewer opportunities in life, being exposed to crime and having poor health. For example, life expectancy at birth (2010-12) for

30 ONS Statistical Bulletin (November 2014) Workless Households for Regions across the UK, 2013

Supported by BIPS Page 25 of 80

men living in the most deprived areas of Norfolk is 6.4 years shorter than men living in the least deprived areas. For women, life expectancy is 2.2 years shorter.31 There are a number of indices available that provide information about economic and income deprivation. The most commonly referred to are the English Indices of Deprivation, including domains such as the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) – these indices are produced as a snapshot, every three or four years. This report also refers to the Children in Income Deprived households Index (CIDI) that gives data on an annual basis and complements the English Indices of Deprivation. Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) According to the Income domain of the English Indices of Deprivation 2010, an estimated 13% of Norfolk’s population was income deprived. The extent of income deprivation was more pronounced for children than for all age groups. The IDACI is a subset of the Income Deprivation domain of the Indices of Deprivation and represents the estimated proportion of children aged 0-15 living in families that are income deprived. It is estimated that approximately 26,100 children (aged 0-15) in Norfolk are living in income deprived families. This represents 18.2% of Norfolk children (this proportion has fallen slightly compared with 19% in the Indices of Deprivation 2007), with the percentages varying widely from almost 32% in Norwich (nearly one in three) to 10.5% in Broadland (Table 5.2). Income deprivation affecting children was however higher in England, at 21.7%. Table 5.2: Children (aged 0-15) in income deprived families (estimated), 2010

Number Percentage of all aged

0-15 (IDACI score) Breckland 3,400 14.7 Broadland 2,200 10.5 Great Yarmouth 4,500 26.8 King's Lynn & West Norfolk 4,700 18.6 North Norfolk 2,500 16.3 Norwich 6,500 31.9 South Norfolk 2,300 10.9 Norfolk 26,100 18.2

Source: English Indices of Deprivation 2010, CLG Figure 5.1 shows the proportion of children experiencing income deprivation by LSOA, with the lighter coloured areas representing those areas with lower rates of

31 Public Health England (2014) Norfolk Health Profile 2014. Available at: http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?QN=HP_RESULTS&GEOGRAPHY=33

Supported by BIPS Page 26 of 80

children experiencing income deprivation and the darker coloured areas representing higher rates.32 Figure 5.1: % of children (aged 0-15) in income deprived families (estimated) by LSOA, 2010

Source: Norfolk Insight (English Indices of Deprivation (IDACI) 2010, CLG) Figure 5.2: % of children (aged 0-15) in income deprived families (estimated) for Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn by LSOA, 2010

Source: Norfolk Insight (English Indices of Deprivation (IDACI) 2010, CLG)

32 The IDACI (Score) measures the proportion of children experiencing income deprivation in an area, for example a (Score) of 0.30 would mean that 30% of children (aged under 16) in the area are 'income deprived'.

Supported by BIPS Page 27 of 80

Similar maps for Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn are shown at Figure 5.2. Although children experience income deprivation across the majority of areas in Norfolk, higher levels are generally concentrated in the urban centres. It is also worth noting that despite some areas being wealthy, these areas may have pockets of deprivation. For example, Holt in North Norfolk is thought to be an affluent area, yet part of Holt has 33% of children experiencing income deprivation. More information is available at CLG and on Norfolk Insight.33 There were 29 LSOAs in Norfolk in the most deprived ten per cent in England according to IDACI, with all of these in Great Yarmouth Borough, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough and Norwich City except for one in part of Thetford Abbey ward. There may be differences between the estimated level of income deprivation reported for a particular area as shown on the maps in Section 5.4 of this report, compared with the estimated level of children living in low income households reported for the area shown on the maps in Section 3.2. Child deprivation and child poverty are complex issues with many contributing factors and a level of deprivation (as measured by the IDACI) does not necessarily mean the same level of child poverty (as measured by HMRC). Children in Income Deprived households Index (CIDI) The Children in Income Deprived households Index (CIDI) represents the estimated proportion of dependent children aged 0-15 that are living in low income households where an adult under the age of 60 is receiving certain out-of-work means-tested benefits. This index tracks neighbourhood-level deprivation each year from 1999 to 2009 on a consistent basis, taking account of changes to the tax and benefit systems over the period. It is produced using the same general methodology as the Income and Employment deprivation domains of the English Indices of Deprivation (with slightly narrower definitions of income and employment deprivation) and as such, complements the Indices of Deprivation 2010.34 On this basis, Figure 5.3 shows the estimated average child income deprivation rate for each of Norfolk’s local authority areas from 1999 to 2009 on a consistent basis, calculated by combining the population-weighted rates of the LSOAs within it. All areas have followed a similar trend over this period.

33 CLG English Indices of Deprivation 2010 statistics. More detailed information is available at CLG and Norfolk Insight - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010 http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/dataviews/view?viewId=120 34 Department for Communities and Local Government (December 2012). Tracking economic and child income deprivation at neighbourhood level in England: 1999 to 2009. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tracking-economic-and-child-income-deprivation-at-neighbourhood-level-in-england-1999-to-2009

Supported by BIPS Page 28 of 80

Figure 5.3: % of children in income deprived households (CIDI), 1999 to 2009

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Year

Ave

rage

sco

re o

n C

IDI

Breckland Broadland Great YarmouthKing's Lynn & West Norfolk North Norfolk NorwichSouth Norfolk

Source: Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) at the University of Oxford 2012, CLG There have been fluctuations in the number of children living in income deprived households over the period 1999 to 2009. Table 5.3 shows the estimated overall change between the numbers in each Norfolk local authority area for 1999 and 2009, with an overall increase for Norfolk. Although Norwich remains the area with the highest number of children in income deprived households, the largest increases in numbers over the period are King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (increase of 555), South Norfolk (increase of 495) and Breckland (increase of 345). It is worth noting that although Broadland and South Norfolk have relatively lower numbers of children in income deprived households, these areas have experienced a disproportionately larger increase (Broadland 10.8%; South Norfolk 28.3%) over the period than many of the other districts. Table 5.3: Number of children in income deprived households (CIDI), 1999 and 2009 1999 2009 Increase % increase Breckland 3,095 3,440 345 11.1 Broadland 1,810 2,005 195 10.8 Great Yarmouth 4,420 4,430 10 0.2 King's Lynn & West Norfolk 4,065 4,620 555 13.7 North Norfolk 2,340 2,365 25 1.1 Norwich 6,355 6,445 90 1.4 South Norfolk 1,750 2,245 495 28.3 Norfolk 23,835 25,550 1,715 7.2

Source: Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) at the University of Oxford 2012, CLG

Supported by BIPS Page 29 of 80

5.5 Benefits The benefit system has a crucial role to play in lifting families out of poverty, and can have a positive impact on child and family poverty by increasing take-up by vulnerable groups and improve work incentives for workless households. Government has identified three key problems with the current benefits system - work incentives are poor, the system is too complex and the welfare bill is too high. The Welfare Reform Act 201235 has been introduced to tackle these issues. More detailed analysis of this complex area of welfare reform can be found at websites such as the Department for Work & Pensions; the Institute for Fiscal Studies; the Local Government Information Unit; and the Children’s Society. Welfare Reform Act 2012 The Welfare Reform Act 2012 (enacted March 2012) legislates for the biggest change to the welfare system for over 60 years. It introduces a wide range of reforms that are intended to make the benefits and tax credits systems fairer and simpler by:

• Creating the right incentives to get more people into work. • Protecting the most vulnerable in our society. • Delivering fairness to those claiming benefit and to the taxpayer.

The main elements of the Act are36: • The introduction of Universal Credit to provide a single streamlined payment

that will improve work incentives. • A stronger approach to reducing fraud and error with tougher penalties for the

most serious offences. • A new claimant commitment showing clearly what is expected of claimants

while giving protection to those with the greatest needs. • Reforms to Disability Living Allowance, through the introduction of the

Personal Independence Payment to meet the needs of disabled people today. • Creating a fairer approach to Housing Benefit to bring stability to the market

and improve incentives to work. • Driving out abuse of the Social Fund system by giving greater power to local

authorities. • Reforming Employment and Support Allowance to make the benefit fairer and

to ensure that help goes to those with the greatest need. • Changes to support a new system of child support which puts the interest of

the child first. In September 2014, the Secretary of State announced that DWP would roll-out Universal Credit nationally to new claims from single people who otherwise would have claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance. DWP will deliver Universal Credit to single claimants in 112 jobcentres by mid-February 2015, and by the end of April 2015 this

35 Welfare Reform Act 2012 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/contents/enacted 36 Department for Work & Pensions - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/welfare-reform-act-2012/

Supported by BIPS Page 30 of 80

will be 245 jobcentres, or one in three. By the end of 2015, Universal Credit will be being delivered in over 500 jobcentres and national expansion will complete in spring 2016 when all 714 jobcentres will be delivering Universal Credit. DWP will continue to expand the reach of Universal Credit, before migration of legacy benefit claimants begins in 2016. All new claims to existing benefits, including working age Housing Benefit, will cease by the end of 2017.37 Implications and impact of proposed welfare reform This radical overhaul of the benefits system will impact on many households in Norfolk. Not only unemployed people on benefits will be affected by this welfare reform, but also a high proportion of people in employment. For example, households where at least one person earning between £50,000 and £60,000 have had their child benefit reduced (or stopped when earning over £60,000) and further changes will continue – welfare changes are being gradually rolled-out nationally. It is not possible to specify the precise impacts that welfare reform will have on children and young people as the composition of households and families can be extremely diverse, although some of the emerging key impacts include:

• A reduction in housing benefit for working age claimants living in the social rented sector whose accommodation is considered larger than their household requires. A claimant’s eligible rent will be reduced by up to 14% if the accommodation is under-occupied by one bedroom and by 25% if it is under-occupied by two or more.

• A new limit on the total amount of benefits working-age people can receive of £500 a week for families and £350 for single households without children (people claiming working tax credit and disability living allowance are exempt). Those with at least three children will be most affected.

• The Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will be replaced for all working-age people by Personal Independence Payment (PIP). There will be no automatic transfer from one benefit to the other, so people currently receiving DLA will have to make a fresh claim for the new benefit and will be re-assessed in line with new assessment criteria.

• Council tax benefit is being replaced by council tax support and government has reduced funding for this by ten per cent.

• The eligibility criteria for Free School Meals (FSM) will change substantially because key benefits which determine whether a family is entitled to FSM (including income support, job seeker’s allowance and child tax credit and working tax credit) will all cease to exist for new claimants and be replaced by the Universal Credit. Additionally, from September 2014 all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 in state-funded schools in England should be offered a free school meal.

• As well as changing the amount paid in benefits, government is changing the way it pays benefits from October 2013. Universal Credit will pay income-based jobseeker’s allowance; income-related employment and support

37 Department for Work & Pensions (February 2015) Universal Credit at Work Spring 2015. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-at-work

Supported by BIPS Page 31 of 80

allowance; income support; child tax credits; working tax credits; and housing benefit in a single monthly payment to one member of a household.

• Under Universal Credit the rates for under 25s are to be lower than the rates for those aged 25 or over. This reflects the fact that young people generally have lower living costs and lower wage expectations. It will also reinforce the stronger work incentives that Universal Credit will create for this age group.

Click here for the current picture about benefits. 38 Research findings published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies39 state that although the long term effect of the Universal Credit is to reduce relative poverty by about 450,000 children and 600,000 working-age adults in 2020-21, the net direct effect of tax and benefit changes is to increase both absolute and relative poverty; this is because other changes such as the switch from RPI- to CPI-indexation of means-tested benefits more than offset the impact on poverty of Universal Credit. Research findings published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Nuffield Foundation40 state that low-income households with children are among those who have lost the most from the coalition’s tax and benefit changes, with middle-income households being left better off. Importantly, changes to the tax and benefit system don’t just affect incomes, they affect work incentives. By cutting benefits for non-working families and increasing the personal allowance, the coalition has significantly strengthened financial incentives to work on average for most groups. However, cuts to in-work benefits have undermined this effect for lone parents and people with children who have a partner who is not in paid work. Entitlement to most benefits is subject to compliance with the rules of receiving that benefit. Non-compliance may result in sanctions, or in other words, benefits being temporarily stopped or reduced. Nationally, there had been a 12% rise in the number of sanctions between November 2012 (the first full month of the new sanctions) and September 2013, compared with the previous year – there were 789,000 sanctions in 2012/13 compared with 705,000 in 2011/12.41 Additionally, a report from DWP in 2012 about benefits take-up estimates that taking all six income-related benefits together, there was between £7.52 billion and £12.31 billion left unclaimed in 2009-10.42 The data below details the numbers receiving particular benefits, so people who have had their benefits stopped due to sanctions, or who do not claim what they

38 https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/simplifying-the-welfare-system-and-making-sure-work-pays 39 Institute for Fiscal Studies (October 2011) Universal Credit not enough to prevent a decade of rising poverty. Available at: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5710 40 Institute for Fiscal Studies (January 2015) The Effect of the Coalition’s Tax and Benefit Changes on Household Incomes and Work Incentives. Available at: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/news/low-income-households-children-and-very-rich-have-lost-most-coalition%E2%80%99s-tax-and-benefit-changes 41 DWP - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefit-sanctions-ending-the-something-for-nothing-culture--2 42 DWP (February 2012) Income-related benefits: estimates of take-up 2009 to 2010. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/income-related-benefits-estimates-of-take-up

Supported by BIPS Page 32 of 80

are entitled to for whatever reason, will not feature. Benefits data will not necessarily, therefore, give a picture of need. Tax credits Refer to the paragraphs above for details about welfare reform and how it could impact families receiving benefits. Tax credits are a flexible system of financial support designed to deliver support as and when a family needs it, tailored to their specific circumstances. They are part of wider government policy to provide support to parents returning to work, reduce child poverty and increase financial support for all families. The latest data available is for August 2012.43 The number of families receiving Tax Credits in Norfolk in August 2012 was around 60,200 – this is a reduction of about 40% from 84,300 in August 2010. Of those families receiving Tax Credits, 72.8% (compared with 80.8% in 2010) are in work (around 43,800 families) and the remaining 27.2% (compared with 19.2% in 2010) being out of work (around 16,400 families). Of the Norfolk families receiving Tax Credits, 18.1% (compared with 13.1% in 2010) were out of work lone parents (around 10,900 families) – this compares with 22.3% for the region and 23.1% nationally. Of the Norfolk families receiving Tax Credits, the highest proportion of out of work lone parents is for Norwich at 24.3% (around 2,700 families), with Great Yarmouth (20.2%, or around 1,800 families) also being above the county average. Around 98,800 children were in families receiving Tax Credits in Norfolk in August 2012 – this is a reduction of about 37% from 135,000 in August 2010. Of those children in families receiving Tax Credits, around 68.5% (compared with 77.3% in 2010) are in working families (around 67,700 children) and the remaining 31.5% (compared with 22.7% in 2010) being out of work (around 31,100 children). Of the children in families receiving Tax Credits, 19.5% (compared with 14.7% in 2010) were children of out of work lone parents (around 19,300 children) – this compares with 23.4% for the region and 24.8% nationally. Of the Norfolk children in families receiving Tax Credits, the highest proportion of out of work lone parents is for Norwich at 27.1% (around 4,800 children), with Great Yarmouth (21.8%, or around 3,100 children) also being above the county average. Working age benefits Refer to the paragraphs above for details about welfare reform and how it could impact families receiving benefits. Working age benefit claimants are categorised by their statistical group (their main reason for interacting with the benefit system). Claimants may be claiming more than one benefit and are therefore categorised according to a benefit hierarchy and are assigned to the highest statistical group that they belong to. Thus, a person who claims Income Support as a Lone Parent and also receives Incapacity Benefit would be classified into ‘incapacity benefits’ group. Key working age benefits groups include: Job Seekers; Incapacity Benefits; Lone Parent; Carer; others on income related benefit; Disabled; and Bereaved. In Norfolk, the working age population amounts to around half a million. The latest data available is for May 2014.

43 Norfolk Insight (HMRC), 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 33 of 80

In May 2014, around 12.8% of the working age population claimed these benefits in Norfolk (around 64,200 claimants), which is above the regional average of 10.9% and below the national average of 13.3%. Great Yarmouth had the highest rate in Norfolk at 19.7%, with King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (14.2%) and Norwich (13.9%) also being above the county average. 44 Figure 5.4 shows the monthly fluctuation in the proportion of working age population claiming Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) for Norfolk during the period 2007 to 2014, compared with regional and national averages. Norfolk’s trend over the period follows a similar pattern to both the region and nationally, although Norfolk’s level remains higher than regionally. Most notable about the data is that over recent months, save for a seasonal rise in the winter of 2013/14, there has been a steep decrease in JSA claimants from a peak in February 2013. Great Yarmouth and Norwich continue to have consistently higher proportions of working age population claiming JSA over the period. Seasonal peaks and troughs are particularly evident for Great Yarmouth and North Norfolk. 45 Figure 5.4: % of working age population claiming JSA, 2007 to 2014

Source: Norfolk Insight (ONS), 2014 Disability Living Allowance (DLA) Refer to the paragraphs above for details about welfare reform and how it could impact families receiving benefits. Disability Living Allowance (DLA) provides a non-contributory, non-means tested, tax-free contribution towards the extra costs of severely disabled people. Payment is not affected by income or whether a person is in employment and the person must have needed help for three months (qualifying

44 Norfolk Insight (DWP Information Directorate), 2014 45 Norfolk Insight (ONS), 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 34 of 80

period) and will be expected to continue to need help for at least a further six months (prospective test). The latest data available is for May 201446. In May 2014, of the total DLA claimants in Norfolk, 13.4% (around 5,800 children) were aged under 16. This is higher than the average national rate of 12.0% but lower than the regional rate of 14.7%. Great Yarmouth has the highest rate in the county at 14.5%, representing almost 1,000 children. King’s Lynn & West Norfolk has the highest number of DLA claimants aged under 16, at around 1,150.

46 Norfolk Insight (DWP Information Directorate), 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 35 of 80

6 Parental employment and skills Children in workless households are at increased risk of poverty. Research undertaken by the charity Save the Children showed that a reduction in child poverty is dependent on the creation of good quality jobs in areas of highest need, the removal of barriers to employment faced by low income parents (which includes raising skill levels) and increasing financial support to families in desperate need through benefits47. The Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK (PSE) project is the largest study of poverty ever conducted in the UK. It details how, over the last 30 years, the proportion of households living below society’s minimum standard of living has increased from 14% to 33%, despite the economy doubling in size over the same period. The report found that that millions of Britons in paid employment live with high levels of deprivation - around 5.5m adults go without essential clothing, around 2.5m children live in homes that are damp, around 1.5m children live in households that cannot afford to heat their homes, and one in every six adults in paid work is technically poor. The report finds that full-time work is not always sufficient to keep families out of poverty, and that children who suffer multiple deprivations are not typically living in homes marked by family breakdown and unemployment. Instead, the majority live with both parents, at least one of whom is employed; they live in small families, with one or two siblings, are white, and live in England.48 Participation in the labour market has a direct impact on household income and is therefore recognised as perhaps the most effective individual driver of movement in and out of poverty. Over half of entries into poverty are associated with a fall in employment earnings, with losing a job the main reason for such a fall. Conversely, while the possible reasons are numerous and often complex, academic research has consistently shown that entering employment is the most common reason for leaving poverty. However, jobs have not always succeeded in lifting people out of poverty - in the UK, around half of all people in poverty were living in working families in 2012/13.49

6.1 Skills In general, the qualification levels of Norfolk residents aged 16-64 are lower than the regional and national figures. In 2013, the level of Norfolk residents achieving National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) level 4 and above was 29.9%, compared with 33.2% for the region and 35.0% nationally. This represents a fall for Norfolk compared with the previous year, in contrast to regional and national improvements. For the lower level qualifications NVQ levels 2 and 1, the gap is less marked for

47 Save the Children (February 2011) Severe Child Poverty: Nationally and Locally Briefing 48 The Conversation (14 June 2014) Largest study of UK poverty shows full-time work is no safeguard against deprivation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/largest-study-of-uk-poverty-shows-full-time-work-is-no-safeguard-against-deprivation-28168 49 ONS (March 2015) Poverty and Employment Transitions in the UK and EU, 2007-2012. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/poverty-and-employment-transitions-in-the-uk-and-eu/2007-2012/index.html

Supported by BIPS Page 36 of 80

2013. Over the last decade, the proportion of people in Norfolk with no qualifications has tended to be worse (higher) than the regional and national averages. In 2013, 9.0% of Norfolk 16-64 year olds (or about 48,000 people) had no qualifications, compared with 8.4% for the region and 9.1% nationally.50 The fastest growing occupations in England generally demand NVQ level 4 qualifications while the fastest declining occupations are those requiring NVQ level 2 and lower qualifications. Although low skilled jobs are expected to persist and will remain important as a labour market entry point for many groups, such as those seeking to move out of unemployment, it is likely that these jobs will have to be up-skilled in order to make improvements in service and product quality and to meet changes in consumer demand.

6.2 Labour market Analysis from ONS shows that in the UK between 2007 and 2012, of those aged 18 to 59 who were in income poverty, but then entered employment, 70% moved out of poverty. The other 30% remained in poverty, despite entering employment. There are a number of employment-related factors associated with how likely it is people will leave poverty after entering employment. People moving into full time jobs (30 or more hours per week) are more likely to leave poverty when entering employment (76%) than those starting part time jobs (62%). Looking at part time workers, those leaving poverty work more hours per week on average (18 hours) than those remaining in poverty (15 hours). Perhaps unsurprisingly, those moving out of poverty have a higher rate of hourly pay than those who remain in poverty. This is true for both full and part time workers. People taking up temporary roles are no less likely to leave poverty than those taking up permanent contracts. However, temporary workers are more likely to see their income fall below the poverty threshold again the following year. Whether moving into employment is likely to be enough to leave poverty may also depend on non-work related factors such as household composition. Single adult households without children are least likely to leave poverty when entering employment (57%).51 Employment and unemployment For the year to June 2014, there were 417,200 people in employment in Norfolk, which is 74.5% of the working age population. This is below the figure for the region (75.8%), but above the national rate of 72.2%. For the same period, there were 21,000 people in Norfolk who were unemployed, which is 4.8% of the working age population. This is below the averages for the region (5.4%) and nationally (6.9%). Norfolk’s employment figures have improved at a similar rate to regional and national rates compared with the previous year, and unemployment figures have improved quicker than the regional and national rates compared with the previous year.52

50 ONS NOMIS Official Labour Market Statistics – Qualifications Jan-Dec 2013. Available at: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/1941962835/report.aspx?#ls 51 ONS (March 2015) Poverty and Employment Transitions in the UK and EU, 2007-2012 52 Official labour market statistics - www.nomisweb.co.uk

Supported by BIPS Page 37 of 80

Average weekly gross pay for all Norfolk residents was £470.20 in 2014. This is lower than both the regional average of £539.10 and national average of £523.60. The inequality in pay has remained broadly consistent with the East of England average since 2009 but narrowed slightly against England over the same period. 53 Full-time and part-time employment split Table 6.1 shows that in 2013 Norfolk has a relatively high proportion of part-time jobs compared with national and regional averages, with an average of 36.0% of jobs being part-time compared with a regional figure of 34.7% and a national figure of 32.3%. Part-time employment varies across the county with Norwich and North Norfolk continuing to have the highest proportions and Broadland continuing to have the smallest. Table 6.1: Norfolk Full-time and Part-time employment, 2013 Full-time % Part-time % Breckland 66.5 33.5 Broadland 67.0 33.0 Great Yarmouth 62.7 37.3 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 65.6 34.4 North Norfolk 61.1 38.9 Norwich 60.9 39.1 South Norfolk 65.5 34.5 Norfolk 64.0 36.0 East of England 65.3 34.7 England 67.7 32.3 Source: ONS Business Register and Employment Survey (reported by nomis), 2013 Broad industrial sectors that have a high proportion of part time workers in Norfolk include arts and entertainment; education; accommodation and food service activities; health; and retail. All of these sectors feature strongly in the economies of North Norfolk, Great Yarmouth and Norwich and consequently these areas have a much higher proportion of part-time workers than the national average. Occupational structure During the period 2001 to 2009, the proportion of people employed in higher paid occupations (professionals, managers and senior officials) increased steadily in Norfolk. In line with the onset of the recession, the proportion of people employed in these occupations fell significantly. However, since the end of 2011 rates have slowly increased again to close to pre-recession proportions. The proportion of those employed in administrative/secretarial occupations and elementary occupations decreased over the same period, while the proportion of people employed in personal/customer services occupations rose slightly. Post-2009 each of these occupations increased their proportional employment at the expense of the decrease in higher earning occupations. However, over the full period between 2009 and the most recent data, proportions have remained broadly consistent across the broader occupations.

53 Official labour market statistics - www.nomisweb.co.uk

Supported by BIPS Page 38 of 80

Employment sectors Norfolk contains several diverse economies, located within rural, urban and coastal environments. The proportions of Norfolk’s employees by sector are shown at Table 6.2, based on the latest data for 2011. Table 6.2: Percentage of employment by sector, 2011

Norfolk % East % England % Agriculture, forestry and fishing 0.5 1.9 1.4 Manufacturing 10.7 9.1 8.5

Mining and quarrying 0.2 0.1 0.1 Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 0.1 0.2 0.4

Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities

0.8

0.7 0.6

Mining, quarrying and utilities 1.1 0.9 1.1 Construction 6.1 5.7 4.7

Motor trades 2.1 2.1 1.8 Wholesale 4.4 5.2 4.2 Retail 12.7 11.6 10.2

Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles

19.2

18.9 16.2

Transportation and storage 3.8 4.9 4.6 Accommodation and food services 7.1 5.9 6.8 Information and communication 1.6 3.1 4.1 Financial and insurance 3.9 2.6 3.9 Property 1.6 1.6 1.7 Professional, scientific and technical 5.2 6.9 7.8 Business administration and support services 6.8 8.7 8.2

Public administration and defence 4.7 3.8 4.8 Education 8.9 9.8 9.2 Health 13.8 11.3 12.4

Public Sector 27.4 24.9 26.4 Arts, entertainment and recreation 2.9 2.5 2.4 Other service activities 2.1 2.2 2.2

Source: Business Register and Employment Survey, 2011

Agriculture is the dominant land use in the county and in 2012 agriculture forestry and fishing enterprises made up 11% of all VAT and PAYE registered enterprises in Norfolk. Many of these are small enterprises, so agriculture is of less significance in terms of the number of people directly employed in the sector. The most significant sector in Norfolk, in employment terms, is the public sector (public administration, defence, education and health), which in September 2011 employed 27.4% of the working population, which is higher than the national average

Supported by BIPS Page 39 of 80

of 26.4%. The proportion of public sector employment rose between 2008 and 2010 although this is likely to be an indication of private sector redundancies in the period rather than a growth in the public sector. In the last year proportions have fallen by 2.1 percentage points in Norfolk and 1.8 percentage points nationally, reflecting the reduction in public sector staff due to budget cuts. In Norfolk, 99.7% of local business units employ less than 250 people and 82.5% of these employ less than ten people. While this does show that the structure of the economy is heavily weighted to smaller businesses, proportions are similar to the national averages. The highest proportion of micro-businesses is found in South Norfolk where 87.3% of business units employ fewer than ten people. The highest proportion of larger business units with more than 250 employees are found in Norwich. All of the Norfolk districts, with the exception of Norwich have fewer larger business units than the national average. Close to two thirds of VAT registered enterprises in the county are located in rural locations, compared with an England average of around a third. Almost 80% of rural enterprises employ less than five people and around 90% employ less than ten. However, despite being a large rural county, over half of all jobs are situated in the urban areas.54

6.3 Disability and employment People with disabilities are less likely to be in employment than those without but the likelihood of being in employment varies significantly depending on the type of disability – for example, those with severe learning difficulties, mental illness or nervous disorders, depression or anxiety are less likely to be employed. In 2011, 45.6% of people aged 16 to 64 with a disability that limits their daily activities, known as DDA disabled, were in work, accounting for around 3.2 million people across the UK. For those without a disability around 76.2% were in work. For those DDA disabled, around a third had a part-time job (33.8%), compared with only a quarter of working people without a disability (24.6%) - so as well as a lower percentage in work, those working tend to work fewer hours. 55 Looking at those who are DDA disabled and working, 11.5% were employed in jobs requiring low skill. This was around the same percentage as all those working who were not disabled. Therefore those who are DDA disabled and working are just as likely as those who were not disabled to be working in the lowest skilled jobs in the UK.

54 Norfolk’s Local Economic Assessment (LEA) and economic intelligence reports. Available at: http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Business/Economic_development/index.htm 55 ONS (December 2011). People with disabilities in the labour market, 2011. Available at - www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_242963.pdf

Supported by BIPS Page 40 of 80

Table 6.3 shows the numbers of economically active people aged 16 to 74 in Norfolk, with a long-term health problem or disability that limits their day-to-day activities. Rather than a simple indicator of whether or not someone was currently in employment, the level of economic activity provides a measure of whether or not a person was an active participant in the labour market, by working or looking for work. This shows that of those economically active people in Norfolk where their long-term health problem or disability limits their day-to-day activities, 90% are in employment. Of those whose day-to-day activities are limited a lot, 90% are employed. The data for Norfolk does not show the types of work undertaken, or the hours worked. Table 6.3: Numbers of employed and unemployed economically active 16+ population, with a long-term health problem or disability, 2011

Economically active - employed Economically active - unemployed Day-to-day activities limited Day-to-day activities limited

a lot a little

Total in employment

- activity limited a lot a little

Total not in employment

- activity limited

Breckland 1,047 3,831 4,878 139 385 524 Broadland 1,018 3,711 4,729 63 266 329 Great Yarmouth 912 2,663 3,575 135 505 640 King's Lynn & West Norfolk 1,256 4,132 5,388 136 491 627 North Norfolk 800 3,029 3,829 99 283 382 Norwich 1,086 3,596 4,682 210 655 865 South Norfolk 896 3,615 4,511 75 312 387 Norfolk 7,015 24,577 31,592 857 2,897 3,754

Source: ONS, Census 2011 Table 6.4 shows the numbers of households where at least one person has a long-term health problem or disability, and whether the household has dependent children or not. Of the 100,600 Norfolk households, 15% have dependent children aged 0 to 15 (whether or not in a family) or a person aged 16 to 18 in full-time education and living in a family with his or her parent(s) or grandparent(s). King’s Lynn & West Norfolk has the highest level with dependent children, closely followed by Norwich.

Supported by BIPS Page 41 of 80

Table 6.4: Numbers of households with a person of long-term health problem or disability, with or without children, 2011 Households where at least one person has a

long-term health problem or disability With dependent

children Without dependent

children Breckland 2,399 12,107 Broadland 1,884 11,623 Great Yarmouth 2,225 10,431 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 2,631 14,959 North Norfolk 1,597 11,941 Norwich 2,418 13,356 South Norfolk 1,921 11,145 Norfolk 15,075 85,562 Source: ONS, Census 2011 Nationally, 316,000 children lived in households claiming Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance as at May 2012. Table 6.5 shows that for Norfolk, there were 3,460 children aged 0 to 15 and 4,210 children aged 0 to 18 (living in 2,380 households) living in households claiming those benefits. For the younger ages groups (0-4 and 5-10), Norwich has the highest levels; Norwich also has the highest level for 11-15 year olds; and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk has the highest level for 16-18 year olds.56 Table 6.5: Number of children living in Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance claimant households by district and age, May 2012 Age

0-4 Age 5-10

Age 11-15

Age 16-18

Age 0-15

Age 0-18

Number of Households

Breckland 90 150 190 110 430 540 310 Broadland 60 100 130 90 300 390 220 Great Yarmouth 140 230 230 140 600 740 400 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 160 230 260 170 660 820 470 North Norfolk 90 110 120 70 320 380 230 Norwich 250 310 280 120 830 950 510 South Norfolk 60 120 130 80 320 390 240 Norfolk 850 1,250 1,340 780 3,460 4,210 2,380 Source: DWP Information Governance and Security Directorate, October 2013 Note: figures have been rounded; figures may not equal due to rounding

56 DWP Information Governance and Security Directorate, October 2013. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/children-in-out-of-work-benefit-households-2012-statistics

Supported by BIPS Page 42 of 80

6.4 Childcare costs The Family and Childcare Trust’s annual childcare costs report for 2014 shows parents in Britain use more of their salary to pay for childcare - more than a quarter – than most other European countries, according to the Organisation of Economic and Cooperation and Development (OECD) data. For a family with two children, the cost for one child in part-time nursery care and one in an after school club is £7,549 a year. This compares to the average UK mortgage cost of £7,207. The cost for the same family needing full-time childcare would amount to £11,700 a year, which is 62% higher than the average UK mortgage. Childcare costs are also outstripping other household bills - 25 hours of childcare in a nursery for a child under two costs an average of £109.89 a week in Britain, which is twice the price of a weekly household food shop. Since the first survey in 2002, childcare costs have risen more than inflation every year. A full-time nursery place for a child under two now costs £9,850 a year, a rise of 3.3% on 2013.57 High childcare costs affects parents’ ability to work, train and study, as well as forcing families to make difficult financial choices. In 2011, Save the Children and Daycare Trust surveyed more than 4,000 parents to explore their views on access to childcare and the impact of childcare costs on family incomes and work prospects. The survey found that cost is a major barrier preventing parents on the lowest incomes from accessing childcare; parents in severe poverty have cut back on key essentials, such as food and household bills, simply to pay for childcare; parents in severe poverty have made very difficult financial choices simply to pay for childcare, such as moving home or getting into debt; difficulties accessing childcare significantly affect the ability of parents in severe poverty to work, train or study; and the high cost of childcare means that work is not paying for the poorest families. 58 Childcare tax credits are available to help working parents (subject to eligibility criteria) with childcare costs. Single parents must work 16 hours or more a week to get childcare tax credits. Couples must both work 16 hours or more a week. But only one has to work these hours if the other is entitled to carer’s allowance; is in hospital or prison; or receiving certain benefits, credits or reductions for disability or illness, such as Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Personal Independence Payment or a disability premium for Housing Benefit. The maximum childcare tax credits for childcare costs is currently £122.50 a week for one child, or £210 a week for two or more children. Financial support for parents who are studying is also available to pay for childcare costs.59

57 Family and Childcare Trust (2014) Childcare Costs Survey 2014. Available at: http://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/News/part-time-childcare-costs-are-now-higher-than-average-uk-mortgage 58 Save the Children (August 2011) Making Work Pay: The Childcare Trap. Available at: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/resources/online-library/making-work-pay-%E2%80%93-childcare-trap 59 GOV.UK Help with childcare costs. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/childcare-tax-credits

Supported by BIPS Page 43 of 80

The cost of childcare in Norfolk is dependent on the type of childcare used. Free Early Learning and Childcare sessions are available for children before they attend school. The following is provided as a rough guide of pricing for individual childcare settings in Norfolk:60

• Day Nurseries – Costs per day can be from £25-£50 – some nurseries will include food, infant formula and nappies in this cost. Nurseries will usually offer a sibling discount and sometimes a set price for a full week’s care can be cheaper than the daily rate.

• Childminders – Tend to charge on an hourly rate as their care is more flexible, starting from roughly £2.50-£5.00. Childminders will sometimes offer a sibling discount.

• Sure Start Children’s Centres – Many of the services provided at a Children’s Centre will be free although childcare may need to be paid for.

• Home based childcare – Costs will vary for home care and sometimes a contribution towards a Nannie’s tax and national insurance must be made.

• Babysitting - around £6p/h • Nannies - around £250-300 per week • Au Pairs - £55 per week plus general living costs • Nursery Schools and Classes – Nurseries which are run by the Local

Education Authority are free. Private School Nursery fees start at around £800 per term, but can be much more.

• Pre-Schools and Playgroups – Costs are usually charged by sessions and vary between playgroups, usually costing around £4-10 per session.

• Before and After School Clubs – Costs are set by the individual setting and are paid by session, sometimes breakfast or snack can be provided at an extra cost. Sessions can vary but usually cost between £4 and £10 per hour.

• Holidays Clubs and Schemes - Costs are set by the individual setting (schools or private organisations) and can be based on daily or weekly rates.

• Parent & Toddler Groups – Costs are generally minimal at around £1.50 per meeting. This is usually just to cover the hire of the premises and a drink for parents and children.

60 Norfolk County Council – Cost of childcare. Available at: http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/childrens_services/family_information_and_childcare/childcare_advice_and_guidance/paying_for_childcare/cost_of_childcare/index.htm

Supported by BIPS Page 44 of 80

7 Life chances This section considers the local picture of outcomes for children and important inequalities in life chances for children living in poverty. There are significant barriers to some disadvantaged children and young people achieving positive health, educational and future employment outcomes and the aim is to remove these barriers through interventions at key stages and help to reduce intergenerational poverty.

7.1 Education Free School Meals (FSM) There are nutritional and financial benefits in parents registering their children for free school meals. Healthy school meals can help to improve children's readiness to learn and their behaviour at school and can also help to establish healthy eating habits for life. Prior to September 2014, children were eligible to receive free school meals if their parents were in receipt of income support, employment support allowance (income related) or income-based job seekers allowance. Families receiving child tax credit but who were not entitled to a working tax credit and whose annual income (as assessed by the Inland Revenue) did not exceed £16,190 were also entitled, as were those who received the guarantee element of state pension credit. Those families receiving working tax credit were not entitled to free school meals. The criteria shows that free school meals were intended to help the most disadvantaged children. In January 2014, around 16,000 Norfolk children in Years R-11 (children aged 4-5 to 15-16 years), were eligible for free school meals (Table 7.1), which is an increase of around 290 children compared with January 2013. At 27.1% (around 3,750 children), Norwich has the highest proportion of Years R-11 children eligible for FSM in the county. Great Yarmouth (22.3% or around 2,800 children) and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (16.2% or around 2,800) also have higher than county average eligibility. At January 2014, the proportion of children eligible for FSM has risen in all but two local authority areas in Norfolk, compared with January 2013 – the decreases were for North Norfolk (decrease of 0.2 percentage points) and Norwich (decrease of 0.5 percentage points). The largest increase in eligibility compared with January 2013 was of 1.3 percentage points in Broadland (from 8.2% in 2013 to 9.5% in 2014).61

61 NCC School Census data, January 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 45 of 80

Table 7.1: Free school meals eligibility for Years R-11 (aged 4-5 to 15-16 years), January 2013 and January 2014 Jan-13 Jan-14 Difference

(percentage points) Area Number % Number %

Breckland 2,171 14.1 2,168 14.2 0.1 Broadland 1,228 8.2 1,586 9.5 1.3 Great Yarmouth 2,797 22.2 2,780 22.3 0.1 King's Lynn & West Norfolk 2,675 15.6 2,796 16.2 0.6 North Norfolk 1,357 13.4 1,335 13.2 -0.2 Norwich 4,016 27.6 3,745 27.1 -0.5 South Norfolk 1,417 9.6 1,540 9.7 0.1 Norfolk 15,661 15.7 15,950 15.7 0.0

Source: NCC School Census data, January 2014 The Children and Families Act 2014 places a legal duty on all state-funded schools in England, including academies and free schools to offer a free school lunch to all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 from September 2014.62 This includes academies, free schools, pupil referral units and alternative provision as well as maintained schools. Existing entitlements to FSMs for disadvantaged pupils in nursery classes and at key stages 2 to 4 will continue, based on the existing FSM eligibility criteria for those groups of pupils. In England, children at key stages 2-4 in state-funded schools are entitled to receive FSM if their parents or carers are in receipt of any of the following benefits:

• Income Support • Income-based Jobseekers Allowance • Income-related Employment and Support Allowance • Support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 • the guaranteed element of State Pension Credit • Child Tax Credit (provided they are not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and

have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190, as assessed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs)

• Working Tax Credit run-on - paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit

• During the initial roll out of the benefit, Universal Credit The Children and Families Act does not change the current position for children who are registered pupils in the nursery class of a maintained school, or in a maintained nursery school. They will continue to receive a FSM if they meet the existing eligibility criteria and they are in receipt of full-time education or education both before and after the lunch period.

62 Department for Education (September 2014) Universal infant free school meals - Departmental advice for local authorities, maintained schools, academies and free schools. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-infant-free-school-meals

Supported by BIPS Page 46 of 80

Young children who take up their funded early education entitlement in a private or voluntary early year’s provider – for example a full day care nursery, or play group – or an independent school are not entitled to a FSM even if they meet the qualifying criteria. This is because the existing FSM framework is relevant only to registered pupils in the state-funded school sector. FSM and ethnicity The proportion of children eligible for FSM varies by ethnicity. For instance, nationally in 201463 around 17% of white British children in early years foundation stage were eligible for FSM, compared with around 37% of black Caribbean children and around 37% of mixed white and black Caribbean children. Around 53% of children of traveller of Irish heritage were eligible for FSM, as were around 44% of Gypsy/Roma children. Local data is not always comparable with national data as numbers of children in certain ethnic groups can be very small for Norfolk. However, the proportion of white British children in early years foundation stage eligible for FSM is around 14%, which is three percentage points below the national figure. Around 24% of mixed white and black African, around 30% of mixed white and black Caribbean and around 45% of Gypsy/Roma children are eligible for FSM locally.64 There is a similar picture of inequality for children at the end of Key Stage 4. Nationally in 201465, around 12% of white British children were eligible for FSM, compared with around 36% of Bangladeshi children and around 31% of black African children. Around 64% of children of traveller of Irish heritage were eligible for FSM, as were around 47% of Gypsy/Roma children. However, it is important to note that cohort numbers can be relatively small for individual ethnic groups making identifying trends over time problematic. Similarly, local data is not always comparable with national data as numbers of children in certain ethnic groups can be very small for Norfolk. However, the proportion of white British children in KS4 eligible for FSM is around 13%, which is similar to the national figure. Around 31% of black African, around 26% of white Irish, around 26% of mixed white and black Caribbean, around 23% of mixed white and black African, and around 52% of Gypsy/Roma children are eligible for FSM locally.66

63 Department for Education – National Pupil Database Achievement in early years foundation stage profile (EYFSP) teacher assessments by ethnicity, free school meal eligibility and gender (Table 2a). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/eyfsp-attainment-by-pupil-characteristics-2013-to-2014 64 NCC School Census data, January 2014 65 Department for Education – National Pupil Database Achievements at GCSE and equivalent for pupils at the end of key stage 4 by ethnicity, free school meal eligibility and gender (Table 2a). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/gcse-and-equivalent-attainment-by-pupil-characteristics-2014 66 NCC School Census data, January 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 47 of 80

Academic achievement All academic achievement data presented is sourced from the Department for Education local authority interactive tool (LAIT) 67. The tool presents information in interactive tables and charts with the local authority’s rank and position within the national, regional and statistical neighbour (local authorities with similar characteristics) contexts. It includes data on some vulnerable groups such as looked after children, and some broad ethnic groups68, and this data will also be presented where available. Foundation Stage – The Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) is a teacher assessment of children’s development at the end of the EYFS (the end of the academic year in which the child turns five). It should support a smooth transition to Key Stage 1 (KS1) by informing the professional dialogue between EYFS and KS1 teachers. This information should help Year 1 teachers plan an effective, responsive and appropriate curriculum that will meet the needs of all children. The Profile is also designed to inform parents or carers about their child’s development against the early learning goals. Latest available data for the percentage of children achieving a good level of development in EYFSP in 2014 is shown at Table 7.2. Norfolk has improved in the year since 2013 by 12 percentage points, which is a greater increase than the areas Norfolk benchmarks itself against. However, Norfolk’s achievement remains below that of those comparator areas. Provisional data suggests that girls continue to perform better than boys at this level, and that children in Broadland, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and South Norfolk achieve the national average or higher, and that children from Norwich have the lowest achievement rate at this level in the county. Children eligible for FSM are improving – in 2014, the percentage achieving a good level of development improved by 12 percentage points compared with the previous year. Table 7.2: % achieving good level of development in EYFSP, 2014

2013 2014 Norfolk 46.00 58.00 East of England 52.00 61.00 Statistical Neighbours 52.10 62.90 England 52.00 60.00 Source: DfE Local authority interactive tool (LAIT), 2015 In terms of ethnicity differences, Table 7.3 shows the percentage of children achieving a good level of development in EYFSP in 2014 by ethnic group. For

67 Department for Education (February 2015) Local authority interactive tool (LAIT). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-authority-interactive-tool-lait 68 A separate calculation is required for each of the five ethnic groups that are reported. The full explanation can be found on the Statistical Release given (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-curriculum-assessments-at-key-stage-2-2014-revised ), but caution needs to be exercised in interpreting these groups, as most have suppression applied to greater or lesser extent.

Supported by BIPS Page 48 of 80

Norfolk, children of Mixed ethnicity and Asian ethnicity perform better than those from White, Black and Chinese groups. Performance has improved in 2014 compared with 2013 for each of the ethnic groups, with the greatest improvement among Asian children, having a 25 percentage point increase on the previous year. Norfolk has different, and in some cases wider inequalities compared with comparator areas. Table 7.3: % achieving good level of development in EYFSP, by ethnicity, 2014 White Mixed Asian Black Chinese Norfolk 58.00 61.00 68.00 54.00 33.00 East of England 62.00 62.00 57.00 60.00 61.00 Statistical Neighbours 63.44 64.11 64.63 60.50 53.38 England 62.00 62.00 57.00 59.00 58.00 Source: DfE Local authority interactive tool (LAIT), 2015 Key Stage 1 – The phonics screening check introduced in 2012 is a statutory assessment for all children in year 1 (typically aged 6). Those pupils who did not meet the standard in year 1 or who were not tested are re-checked at the end of year 2 (typically aged 7). Pupils are deemed to have met the required standard of phonic decoding if they scored 32 or more out of a possible 40 in the test. Norfolk has seen a slightly greater improvement over the three year period 2012 to 2014 than the areas Norfolk benchmarks itself against, although lags behind their annual average scores. In Norfolk, 69% achieved the expected level in phonics compared with 74% nationally in 2014 (Table 7.4). Provisional data suggests that girls continue to perform better than boys at this level, and that children in South Norfolk achieve above the national average, and that children from Norwich and Great Yarmouth have the lowest achievement rates at this level in the county. Children eligible for FSM are improving – in 2014, those achieving the expected standard improved by ten percentage points compared with the previous year. Table 7.4: % achieving expected level in Phonics decoding, 2014 2012 2013 2014 Norfolk 50.00 61.00 69.00 East of England 55.00 67.00 73.00 Statistical Neighbours 56.70 69.00 73.70 England 58.00 69.00 74.00 Source: DfE Local authority interactive tool (LAIT), 2015 By the age of seven years old, children end Key Stage 1 with teacher assessed outcomes in reading, writing and mathematics. The expected level of attainment is achieved by reaching a Level 2. Norfolk outcomes for 2014 are the same (within one percentage point) as the areas Norfolk benchmarks itself against. There has been improvement in Norfolk’s performance over the past five years, and this trend is mirrored across the comparator areas. Provisional data suggests that girls continue to perform better than boys at this level.

Supported by BIPS Page 49 of 80

Key Stage 2 – Since national curriculum assessments at key stage 2 were introduced in 1995, there have been a number of changes to the process by which the assessments are run and tests are marked which are likely to affect year on year comparisons. There were significant changes to KS2 assessment in 2012 and 2013 and only minor changes to assessment arrangements in 2014 – for this reason, the DfE say that results cannot be compared to previous years. KS2 assessments in English and mathematics are taken at the end of Year 6, usually when children are 11 years old. The performance for Norfolk children achieving Level 4+ at KS2 in reading, writing and maths (74%) remains below the areas Norfolk benchmarks itself against in 2014 (Table 7.5). Norfolk has improved in the year since 2013 by three percentage points, which is a similar increase to the areas Norfolk benchmarks itself against. However, Norfolk’s achievement remains below that of those comparator areas. Provisional data suggests that girls continue to perform better than boys at this level, and that children from Broadland and South Norfolk achieve above the national average, and that children from Breckland have the lowest achievement rate at this level in the county. Table 7.5: % achieving KS2 Level 4+ Reading, Writing and Maths, 2014 2012 2013 2014 Norfolk 69.00 71.00 74.00 East of England 73.00 74.00 77.00 Statistical Neighbours 74.20 74.80 77.80 England 75.00 75.00 79.00 Source: DfE Local authority interactive tool (LAIT), 2015 The proportion of Norfolk children making expected progress in reading is around four percentage points below the national average; for writing, Norfolk is around three points below; and for maths, Norfolk is around five points below. Norfolk girls continue to perform better at achieving Level 4+ in reading, writing and maths (78%) than boys (71%), and around 67% of pupils with English as an additional language achieve this level. The gap between Norfolk’s disadvantaged pupils and others achieving Level 4+ at KS2 in reading, writing and maths in 2014 is 21 percentage points, which is worse than nationally. Children eligible for FSM are improving – in 2014, the percentage achieving the Level 4+ standard improved by five percentage points compared with the previous year. The percentage of Norfolk’s LAC children in care reaching Level 4 in reading, writing and maths in 2014 is 38%, which although is an improvement on the previous year, is ten percentage points below the national average, and below the other comparator areas. In terms of ethnicity differences, Table 7.6 shows the percentage of children attaining KS2 in reading, writing and maths in 2014 by ethnic group. For Norfolk, children of Asian ethnicity and Chinese ethnicity perform better than those from Black, White and Mixed groups. Performance has improved in 2014 compared with 2013 for all ethnic groups, except the Mixed group. The greatest improvements have been among Black children, having a 24 percentage point increase on the previous year,

Supported by BIPS Page 50 of 80

and Chinese children, having a 23 point improvement. Norfolk has different, and in some cases wider inequalities compared with comparator areas. Table 7.6: % attaining KS2 in reading, writing and maths, by ethnicity, 2014 White Mixed Asian Black Chinese Norfolk 74.00 72.00 85.00 75.00 100.00 East of England 77.00 79.00 77.00 77.00 92.00 Statistical Neighbours 77.90 78.90 78.00 66.17 90.20 England 79.00 80.00 80.00 77.00 89.00 Source: DfE Local authority interactive tool (LAIT), 2015 Key Stage 4 – The latest KS4 results for 2014 are set in context of a national picture of significant turbulence in testing, with changes to the exam system impacting on results, particularly in English. KS4 assessments are taken at the end of Year 11, usually when children are 16 years old. In Norfolk, the percentage of children achieving the Gold Standard of 5 GCSEs at A*-C including English and mathematics is 52.7%, which remains below the areas Norfolk benchmarks itself against (Table 7.7). It is not possible to directly compare 2014 figures with earlier years due to two major reforms that have been implemented which affect the calculation of KS4 performance measures data in 2014.69 Table 7.7: % achieving 5 GCSEs at A*-C including English and mathematics, 2014 2012 2013 2014 Norfolk 55.60 54.40 52.70 East of England 58.20 59.80 57.20 Statistical Neighbours 55.76 57.82 53.73 England 59.40 59.20 53.40 Source: DfE Local authority interactive tool (LAIT), 2015 Norfolk girls continue to perform better at achieving this level (58.2%) than boys (47.3%), and 41.6% of pupils with English as an additional language achieve this level. In Norfolk, 70.4% have made the expected progress in English, compared with 71.6% nationally; and 64.8% have made expected progress in maths, compared with 65.5% nationally. The gap between Norfolk’s disadvantaged pupils and others achieving this level in 2014 is 29 percentage points, which is worse than nationally. Provisional data suggests that children from Broadland, North Norfolk and South Norfolk achieve above the national average, and that children from King’s Lynn & West Norfolk have the lowest achievement rate at this level in the county. Achievement at this level for Norfolk children eligible for FSM lags behind the comparator areas. The percentage of Norfolk’s LAC children in care reaching the

69 Department for Education Statistical Release (January 2015) Revised GCSE and equivalents results in England, 2013 to 2014. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/revised-gcse-and-equivalent-results-in-england-2013-to-2014

Supported by BIPS Page 51 of 80

Gold Standard at KS4 in 2014 is 8.3%, which is in excess of five percentage points below the statistical neighbour average, and below the other comparator areas. In terms of ethnicity differences, Table 7.8 shows the percentage of children achieving 5 GCSEs at A*-C including English and mathematics, in 2014 by ethnic group. For Norfolk, children of Asian ethnicity and Chinese ethnicity perform better than those from Black, White and Mixed groups. A much lower proportion of children of Black ethnicity achieve at this level, compared with the other broad ethnic groups. Table 7.8: % achieving 5 GCSEs at A*-C including English and mathematics, by ethnicity, 2014 White Mixed Asian Black Chinese Norfolk 52.80 52.20 62.30 38.60 67.60 East of England 56.90 60.20 59.90 58.50 76.50 Statistical Neighbours 53.65 59.97 57.10 57.48 67.95 England 56.30 57.90 61.50 53.70 76.30 Source: DfE Local authority interactive tool (LAIT), 2015 Absence and Persistent Absence from school Central to raising standards in education and ensuring all pupils can fulfil their potential is that pupils need to attend school regularly to benefit from their education. Missing out on lessons leaves children vulnerable to falling behind. Children with poor attendance tend to achieve less in both primary and secondary school. The evidence shows that children with poor attendance are unlikely to succeed academically and they are more likely not to be in education, employment or training (NEET) when they leave school. As children move up through the school system, the numbers of children who are persistently absent grow, most significantly in the final years of secondary school. Despite a lot of focus on these children, this figure is still too high. They tend to be children who have become disillusioned with school and have stopped turning up. By the time children have reached their mid-teens it becomes more difficult for parents and schools to get these truants to attend. The majority of children whose parents are taken to court for bad attendance are in Years 10 and 11, but by this time it is often too late for prosecution to solve the attendance problems.70 Authorised absence is absence with permission from a teacher or other authorised representative of the school. This includes instances of absence for which a satisfactory explanation has been provided (for example, illness). Unauthorised absence is absence without permission from a teacher or other authorised representative of the school. This includes all unexplained or unjustified absences.

70 Department for Education (2012) Improving attendance at school. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/improving-attendance-at-school

Supported by BIPS Page 52 of 80

Arriving late for school, after the register has closed, is recorded as unauthorised absence. The key measure of persistent absence relates to the academic year. A pupil is classified as a persistent absentee for the academic year if missing around 15% or more of possible sessions (46 or more sessions for five half terms and 56 or more sessions for six half terms). To account for high levels of study leave and other authorised absence, the 6th half term absence data for 15 year old pupils has been discounted. The persistent absence threshold has been adjusted accordingly. For the first time in 2012/13, information on absence in the sixth half term has been published. However, the headline measures focus on five half terms to ensure a consistent time series.71 Table 7.9 shows the number of sessions missed due to pupil absence expressed as a percentage of the total number of possible sessions. For the 2012/13 academic year, the total overall (authorised and unauthorised) absences for Norfolk pupils is 5.7%, which is higher than the region (5.3%) and national (5.2%) averages. Table 7.10 shows that overall absence for Norfolk is higher than the region and national averages in primary and secondary schools. The rates of authorised absences for Norfolk primary and secondary pupils are higher than the region and national averages. Norfolk’s secondary schools have a higher rate of unauthorised absence compared with the region and nationally.72 Table 7.9: Norfolk total pupil absences (%), 2012/13

Overall

absence Authorised

absence Unauthorised

absence Norfolk 5.7 4.6 1.1 East of England 5.3 4.4 0.9 England 5.2 4.2 1.0

Source: DfE Pupil absence in schools in England, 2014 Table 7.10: Norfolk pupil absences (%) by type of school, 2012/13

State-funded primary schools %

of sessions missed State-funded secondary schools

% of sessions missed Special schools % of sessions

missed

Overall absence

Authorised absence

Unauthorised absence

Overall absence

Authorised absence

Unauthorised absence

Overall absence

Authorised absence

Unauthorised absence

Norfolk 4.9 4.3 0.7 6.5 5.0 1.6 8.4 7.5 0.9 East of England 4.7 4.0 0.7 5.9 4.7 1.2 9.4 7.9 1.5 England 4.7 3.9 0.7 5.8 4.5 1.3 9.7 7.8 1.9

Source: DfE Pupil absence in schools in England, 2014

71 Department for Education Statistical Release (March 2014) Pupil Absence in Schools in England: 2012 to 2013. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pupil-absence-in-schools-in-england-2012-to-2013 72 Department for Education (March 2014) Pupil absence in schools in England: 2012 to 2013. Local authority tables: SFR09/2014. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pupil-absence-in-schools-in-england-2012-to-2013

Supported by BIPS Page 53 of 80

Table 7.11 shows the number of persistent absentees by type of school, and expressed as a percentage of the total number of enrolments for 2012/13. Norfolk has a total of around 4,800 persistent absentees, defined as having an overall absence rate of around 15% or more, which equates to 46 or more sessions of absence (authorised and unauthorised) during the year. This is five per cent of the total number of enrolments, which is higher than the region and national averages. Norfolk’s secondary schools have a persistent absence rate of 7.4%, which is higher than the region and national averages. Table 7.11: Norfolk persistent absentees by type of school, 2012/13

State-funded

primary schools State-funded

secondary schools Special schools Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Norfolk 1,503 2.9 3,167 7.4 109 12.0 4,779 5.0 East of England 11,720 3.0 20,695 6.2 1,200 15.1 33,620 4.6 England 106,845 3.0 181,200 6.4 12,850 16.1 300,895 4.6

Source: DfE Pupil absence in schools in England, 2014 In the East of England for 2012/13, there is a correlation between higher rates of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence, and higher levels of deprivation, as determined by the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Indices. This relationship is also seen with rates of persistent absenteeism (Table 7.12). Table 7.12: Pupil absence in schools by IDACI decile of pupil residence, East of England, 2012/13

State-funded primary and secondary schools and

all special schools IDACI decile % of sessions missed % of

persistent absentees Overall

absence Authorised absence

Unauthorised absence

0 - 10 % most deprived 6.7 4.7 2.1 7.7 10 - 20 % 6.4 4.7 1.7 7.0 20 - 30 % 6.1 4.7 1.5 6.3 30 - 40 % 5.8 4.6 1.2 5.5 40 - 50 % 5.5 4.4 1.1 4.8 50 - 60 % 5.3 4.4 0.9 4.3 60 - 70 % 5.0 4.3 0.8 3.8 70 - 80 % 4.8 4.1 0.7 3.3 80 - 90 % 4.5 3.9 0.6 2.8 90 - 100 % least deprived 4.1 3.7 0.5 2.2

Source: DfE Pupil absence in schools in England, 2014 Of the Norfolk LAC children in care who have been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, the overall absence rate from school in 2013 was 4.7%. Although this is a slight reduction on the previous year, Norfolk’s rate is still higher than the

Supported by BIPS Page 54 of 80

regional (4.6%) and national (4.4%) rates. However, Norfolk’s statistical neighbour rate has increased over the year to 5.2%. In terms of Norfolk’s LAC unauthorised absence rate, not only has it slightly reduced over the year, but is lower than the statistical neighbour and national rates. The percentage of Norfolk LAC children in care who are classed as persistent absentees has decreased in the year to 2013 (4.8%) and is below the statistical neighbour (7.1%) and national (5.0%) rates. Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) Young people who are NEET are at greater risk of a range of negative outcomes, including poor health, depression or early parenthood. For most young people, being NEET is a temporary outcome as they move between different education and training options. The characteristics of young people who are not participating are diverse, although there are some groups that are at greater risk of becoming NEET. This includes, for example, those with few or no qualifications, those with a health problem, disability or low aspirations.73 Norfolk County Council collects local data about NEETs, although this differs to the nationally published estimates - the local data presented is a monthly snapshot and relates to young people who were aged 16-18 on the day of the count and is unadjusted NEET, whereas the nationally published figures are adjusted to take account of lost contacts. The local data shows a decreasing NEET trend across the county (November 2011 to November 2013) overall and for each of the districts. Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk have worse rates than the county average (Table 7.13). The estimated number of NEETs in Norfolk has reduced by almost 200 young people in November 2013, compared with November 2012. Table 7.13: Norfolk 16 to 18 year olds NEETs (estimated), November 2011 to 2013

% November

2011

% November

2012

% November

2013

Number November

2013 Breckland 7.4 6.1 5.3 224 Broadland 5.2 3.9 3.3 136 Great Yarmouth 9.5 7.5 6.0 213 King's Lynn & West Norfolk 7.5 6.7 5.4 247 North Norfolk 6.0 6.7 4.5 130 Norwich 11.6 9.8 9.2 318 South Norfolk 5.4 5.2 3.9 154 Norfolk 7.4 6.5 5.3 1,422 Source: Norfolk County Council Children’s Services, 2014

73 Department for Education – NEET. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/a0064101/16-to-18-year-olds-not-in-education-employment-or-training-neet

Supported by BIPS Page 55 of 80

Annual published figures (averages between November and January each year) from the Department for Education74 show an annual decrease in numbers of 16 to 18 year old NEETs in Norfolk (Table 7.14) over the period 2011 to 2013, although rates remain worse than regional and national averages. Table 7.14: 16 to 18 year olds NEETs, 2011 to 2013 2011 2012 2013 Number % Number % Number % Norfolk 1,940 6.9 1,720 6.3 1,550 5.8 East of England 6.0 5.6 5.1 England 6.1 5.8 5.3 Source: Department for Education, 2014 Looking at the nationally published data for specific ages75, Table 7.15 shows that rates for Norfolk 16, 17 and 18 year old NEETs have improved over the year to 2013, but remain higher than region averages. The data also shows that NEET rates increase as youngsters get older. Table 7.15: % of 16 to 18 year olds NEETs by age, 2012 and 2013 2012 2013

age 16 age 17 age 18 age 16 age 17 age 18 Norfolk 4.0 6.1 8.7 3.1 6.0 8.6 East of England 3.3 5.3 8.3 2.5 4.9 8.1 Source: Department for Education, 2014 Most young people spend a short time NEET before starting a course or taking up work or training. But others need more help if they are to avoid an extended and potentially damaging period outside learning or work. The quicker young people who become NEET receive guidance interventions, the more likely they are to be effectively re-engaged. For this reason, the length of time a young person remains NEET can be a good indicator of their overall ability to re-engage. Typically, young people who remain unemployed for over six months will have more complex barriers to overcome and will require more intensive support. In November 2013, 63% of those young people who were NEET had been so for less than four months, with 17% having been NEET for less than a month. However, 23% of those young people who were NEET had been NEET for over six months with almost half of these having been NEET for over a year.76 In Norfolk, 16 to 18 year olds who are eligible for FSM are twice as likely to become NEET as those who do not. There has been a steady increase in representation of LDD young people in the NEET cohort over the last four years, with LDD young

74 Public Health Outcomes Framework (Department for Education) Indicator Number 1.05. Available at: http://www.phoutcomes.info/ 75 Department for Education (May 2014) NEET data by local authority. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/neet-data-by-local-authority-2012-16-to-18-year-olds-not-in-education-employment-or-training 76 Norfolk County Council EET Commissioning Support Team (2014) 11-19 Norfolk Education and Training Needs Analysis. Available at: http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/resource/view?resourceId=968

Supported by BIPS Page 56 of 80

people now being more than twice as likely to be represented in the NEET group as in the population as a whole. Approximately three quarters of teenage parents or pregnant young women are NEET. The next highest incidence of NEET by circumstance is for young people whose last maintained school was Short Stay School, followed by young offenders and LAC.77 Increasing participation and reducing NEET Local authorities have statutory duties in relation to 16 to 19 year olds, including supporting those who are NEET. They offer a variety of services for young people, often in partnership with other organisations. Norfolk County Council runs an information, advice and careers guidance website for young people - this covers 6th Form and college courses, apprenticeships, jobs and training, higher education, volunteering and other relevant information and advice.78 In addition, Norfolk Adult Education and Guidance Services works to provide learning opportunities to vulnerable and disengaged sections of the community such as young people (16-18 year olds) deemed to be in danger of becoming NEET. Norfolk’s Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) with Suffolk (New Anglia) works in partnership to deliver outcomes for the Norfolk economy, including organising a range of student conventions highlighting career opportunities in sectors such as construction, creative industries, energy, financial services and science; working with local and national partners to increase business and jobs in Norfolk, especially in key sectors, such as energy, engineering and health and life sciences; and creating a programme to help those wishing to start their own business, run in conjunction with Norfolk’s district councils. Underpinned by a partnership approach, Norfolk has a Raising Participation Strategy, which includes the NEET strategy, to ensure that resources are appropriately targeted geographically and by vulnerable group so that every young person is given the options and support that is right for them. This means that there are increased employment opportunities and young people will be ready to take them up, and training provision will meet identified needs. During 2012/13, Norfolk has seen a marked increase in the number of young people starting an apprenticeship, compared with the areas Norfolk benchmarks itself against. Over the year, Norfolk starts for 16 to 18 year olds increased by 7.2%, compared with regional and national decreases. For 19 to 24 year olds, Norfolk starts increased by 8.6% over the year, compared with 5.7% for the region and 2.2% nationally. In terms of Advanced Apprenticeship starts, over the year Norfolk’s starts for 16 to 18 year olds increased by 19.1%, compared with regional and national decreases. For 19 to 24 year olds, Norfolk starts increased by 24.8% over the year, compared with 16.7% regionally and 10.1% nationally.79

77 11-19 Norfolk Education and Training Needs Analysis, 2014 78 http://helpyouchoose.org/index.cfm 79 11-19 Norfolk Education and Training Needs Analysis, 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 57 of 80

For 16 to 18 year olds, there were increased numbers of apprenticeship starts for 2012/13 in all districts, except Breckland and North Norfolk, compared with the previous year. For 19 to 24 year olds, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk was the only district to have a decrease in numbers of apprenticeship starts compared with the previous year.80 For 16 to 18 year olds, numbers of starts for 2012/13 have increased significantly compared with the previous year for Vehicle Maintenance and Repair (increase of 27%), Customer Service (increase of 23%), Business Administration (increase of 18%) and Engineering (increase of 18%). For 19 to 24 year olds, the highest volume of starts for 2012/13 are in Health & Social Care by a large margin. There has been a significant increase compared with the previous year for Business Administration (increase of 33%), and a decrease for Customer Service (decrease of 21%).81

7.2 Child health & wellbeing Giving every child the best start in life is fundamental to reducing health inequalities across the whole of an individual’s life. It is well established that virtually all aspects of human development, including physical, intellectual, and emotional traits, arise from foundations set in early childhood. Together these have significant impact on the future life and prospects of the individual, not only in terms of health and wellbeing, but also in terms of educational, social, and working achievements. Children typically represent one of the healthiest groups of the population with low levels of morbidity and mortality. However, research has demonstrated the association of poor health status during childhood with more severe health problems later in life and an increased likelihood of premature death. The changing face of childhood health has necessitated a change in the focus of childhood health programmes. While immunisation is still high on the public health agenda, contemporary childhood health programmes have an increasing focus on non-communicable disease emerging problems such as obesity, risky behaviours, mental health, dysfunctional families and relationships, and other environmental factors.82 Infant deaths Infant mortality is an indicator of the general health of an entire population. The rate of infant mortality (the rate of deaths in infants aged under one year per 1,000 live births) reflects the relationship between causes of infant mortality and determinants of population health such as economic, social and environmental conditions. Deaths occurring during the first 28 days of life (the neonatal period) in particular, are considered to reflect the health and care of both mother and newborn. There is a recognised correlation between higher infant mortality rates and deprivation.

80 11-19 Norfolk Education and Training Needs Analysis, 2014 81 11-19 Norfolk Education and Training Needs Analysis, 2014 82 Norfolk County Council (May 2014) Norfolk Healthy Child Programme for Children and Young People (5-19 years old). Available at: http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/jsna/youngpeople

Supported by BIPS Page 58 of 80

Infant mortality can be divided into neonatal mortality - deaths up to 27 days after live births, and post-neonatal mortality - deaths from 28 days but under one year. The majority of infant deaths in the UK occur in the neonatal period and account for around 70% of infant deaths. The UK has among the higher stillbirth rates in Europe. Nationally the rate of infant mortality has been declining steadily since the 2001/03 period. This has not been the trend in Norfolk; instead the infant mortality rate increased from 4.4 per 1,000 births in 2001/03 to 4.9 per 1,000 in 2005/07, declined to a low of 3.9 per 1,000 in 2008/10 and has since risen again to 4.3 per 1,000 in 2010/12, which is above that national average of 4.1 per 1,000. However, it is worth noting that these fluctuations cannot be considered statistically significant, and Norfolk is not statistically significantly higher than the regional or national averages.83 Low birth weight Low birth weight refers to babies born weighing less than 2,500g (with those less than 1,500g classed as very low). High birth weight refers to babies weighing over 4,000g. Low birth weight increases the risk of childhood mortality, developmental problems and poorer health in later life. Higher infant mortality rates in the UK are driven by the fact that nearly two thirds of the children who die before their first birthday were born preterm, and/or with low birth weight. Babies with a low birth weight are at increased risk for both obesity and type 2 diabetes, especially when rapid catch up growth occurs. There is a recognised link between low birth weight and deprivation as rates are higher in less advantaged socio-economic groups. Low birth weight is linked to a number of negative health behaviours such as poor prenatal care, substance abuse and smoking which are more common in these groups. In addition there is a relationship between teenage pregnancy and low birth weight, where there is competition for nutrients between the foetus and the growth needs of the mother. Inadequate nutrition can also drive low birth weights. There has been a downward trend in the proportion of babies born with low birth weight over the last few years of available data, and Norfolk now has the lowest low birth rate in the East of England region. In Norfolk for 2011, 2.0% of full-term babies were born with a low birth weight, which is significantly lower than the regional average of 2.5% and the national average of 2.8%. No district in Norfolk is above the regional average for low birth weight – Great Yarmouth has the highest rate at 2.5%, followed by Norwich at 2.4%, North Norfolk and Breckland at 2.3%, South Norfolk at 1.9%, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk at 1.8% and Broadland (the lowest proportion in the region) at 1.0%.84 Healthy weight and childhood obesity Obesity in childhood is a significant issue as it is linked to adult obesity, which is a major cause of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. There is a strong case for early intervention in helping people to maintain a healthy weight as evidence suggests that future lifestyles are determined by early life experiences. Food preferences, activity

83 Norfolk County Council (August 2014) Norfolk Healthy Child Programme for Children from Birth to Five Years. Available at: http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/jsna/youngpeople 84 Norfolk Healthy Child Programme for Children from Birth to Five Years, August 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 59 of 80

levels and leisure activities as adults are all influenced by parenting and the home environment in the first years of life. In addition to impacting significantly on the quality of life of the individual, obesity leads to increased health and social care costs for society. Obesity has been identified as a priority locally, with the Norfolk Health and Wellbeing Board identifying it as one of their three priorities for the Norfolk Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2011-15. Every year all children at Reception age (aged four to five) and Year 6 (aged ten to eleven) have their height and weight measured under the National Child Measurement Programme (NCMP). The NCMP has been running for eight years and overall the trend in Norfolk is there has been an increase in the proportion of children who are overweight at both Reception age and Year 6. However, for both age groups the most recent data for 2012/13 shows a decrease in the prevalence of children being overweight (including very overweight). In 2012/13, 23.0% of Norfolk’s Reception age children were overweight, which is worse than regionally (21.1%) and nationally (22.2%). The proportion of very overweight children (8.8%) is worse than the regional (8.1%) but better than the national (9.3%) average. For Norfolk’s Year 6 children, 32.1% were overweight, which is worse than regionally (31.0%) and better than nationally (33.3%). The proportion of very overweight children (18.6%) is worse than the regional (17.0%) but better than the national (18.9%) average. The proportion of children who are overweight or very overweight differs across the seven districts of the county, although no district is significantly higher than the Norfolk average. Breckland and Great Yarmouth have significantly higher rates of overweight Reception age children than the England average. In Norfolk there are a third more very overweight children in the most deprived areas than in the least deprived (the percentage of Reception age children is 38% higher in the most deprived quintile and 31% higher for children in Year 6). 85 Breastfeeding rates Breast milk provides the ideal nutrition for infants in the first stages of life. There is evidence that babies who are breast fed experience lower levels of gastro-intestinal and respiratory infection. Observational studies have shown that breastfeeding is associated with lower levels of child obesity. Benefits to the mother include a faster return to pre-pregnancy weight and possibly lower risk of breast and ovarian cancer. In Norfolk for 2013/14, over three-quarters (77.8%) of mothers initiate breastfeeding (where status is known), which is better than the averages for the East of England (76.7%) and for England (73.9%). From 2010/11, Norfolk’s rate has improved annually, compared with the national rate which has remained at around the same level.86 Breastfeeding is maintained by around 46% of women on average in Norfolk

85 Norfolk Healthy Child Programme for Children from Birth to Five Years, August 2014 86 Public Health Outcomes Framework - http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/health-profiles

Supported by BIPS Page 60 of 80

(although this figure varies between the different districts within the county) compared with around 47% in England after six weeks.87

Teenage conceptions It is widely understood that teenage pregnancy and early motherhood can be associated with poor educational achievement, poor physical and mental health, social isolation, poverty and related factors. There is also a growing recognition that socio-economic disadvantage can be both a cause and a consequence of teenage motherhood.88 ONS also analysed conception rates alongside data from the 2010 Indices of Deprivation, a measure covering seven different indicators including income, education, employment, health and crime. This revealed a strong statistical association between indicators of deprivation and teenage conception rates. Out of a range of measures looking at different aspects of deprivation, the indicator with the strongest association with under 18 conception rates was the overall deprivation rank. Other indicators, including the child poverty rate and unemployment rate, had a moderately strong association with under 18 conception rates.89 Overall, Norfolk rates for conceptions amongst 15-17 year olds have reduced approximately 40% over the last five years (Table 7.16). In 2013, teenage conception rates (per 1,000 population aged 15-17) are higher in Norfolk (22.2) than for the East of England (21.0), but remain lower than England as a whole (24.3). Table 7.16: Under 18 conceptions rate per 1,000 women aged 15-17, 2009 to 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Norfolk 36.1 33.3 28.4 23.9 22.2 East of England 30.7 29.1 26.6 23.2 21.0 England 37.1 34.2 30.7 27.7 24.3 Source: ONS, 2015 Note: Conception rates for 2002 to 2010 have been recalculated using mid-year population estimates based on the 2011 Census and therefore may differ from previously published figures. The rate of teenage conceptions varies considerably across different Norfolk districts (Table 7.17), highlighting areas of inequality. The conception rate for under 18 year olds is lower in Broadland (15.5), South Norfolk (16.0), North Norfolk (19.0) and Breckland (19.3) compared with the county (22.2), region (21.0) and national (24.3) rates. In contrast, the rates in Great Yarmouth (26.5), King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (28.7) and Norwich (31.4) are higher, although it should be noted that these areas have seen reduction during the year to 2013 (approximately nine percentage points for Great Yarmouth, and eight percentage points for Norwich). Rates for under 16 year olds (conceptions per 1,000 13-15 year olds) during the period 2011-2013 are

87 Public Health Norfolk 88 ONS Statistical Bulletin (February 2015) Conceptions in England and Wales, 2013. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/conception-statistics--england-and-wales/2013/index.html 89 ONS (April 2014) Teenage conception rates highest in the most deprived areas. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-trends/area-based-analysis/conceptions-deprivation-analysis-toolkit/conceptions-deprivation-measures--2009-11.html

Supported by BIPS Page 61 of 80

highest in Norwich, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, Great Yarmouth and North Norfolk.90 Table 7.17: Teenage conception numbers and rates, under 18s and under 16s

2013 2011-2013

Number of under 18

conceptions

Conception rate of under 18 year

olds (per 1,000 15-17 year olds)

Number of under 16

conceptions

Conception rate of under 16 year

olds (per 1,000 13-15 year olds)

Breckland 45 19.3 21 3.1 Broadland 35 15.5 24 3.6 Great Yarmouth 48 26.5 31 6.1 King's Lynn & West Norfolk 72 28.7 47 6.5 North Norfolk 32 19.0 23 5.0 Norwich 56 31.4 34 6.7 South Norfolk 37 16.0 17 2.5 Norfolk 325 22.2 197 4.7 East of England 2,217 21.0 1,430 4.6 England 22,830 24.3 15,155 5.5

Source: ONS, 2015 Table 7.18 shows the conception rate of under 18 year olds (per 1,000 15-17 year olds) for 2012 by district, and ranks those rates for each of the 346 local authority areas in England and Wales - a rank of 1 is the worst and a rank of 346 is the best. Broadland has almost the best rate nationally in 2012 (ranked 342 out of 346), with North Norfolk and South Norfolk also in the best quintile, and Breckland in the second best quintile. Norwich has the worst ranking in the county (ranked 22 out of 346), with Great Yarmouth also in the worst quintile and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk ranked in the second worst quintile. 91 Table 7.18: Under 18 conception rate and rank by district, 2012

Conception rate of under 18 year olds (per 1,000

15-17 year olds)

Rank of 346 local authorities in England and Wales 1= worst 346= best

Breckland 20.5 252 Broadland 10.9 342 Great Yarmouth 35.6 54 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 30.0 121 North Norfolk 16.6 301 Norwich 39.8 22 South Norfolk 16.7 298

Source: ONS Conceptions to women aged under 18, England and Wales, Interactive mapping tool 1998-2012, November 2014

90 ONS, 2015 91 ONS Conceptions to Women Aged Under 18, England and Wales, Interactive mapping tool 1998-2012, November 2014 Available at: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc130/index.html

Supported by BIPS Page 62 of 80

At ward level, the map at Figure 7.1 shows the difference between the under 18 conception rate per 1,000 population aged 15-17, and the national rate for the same period of 2009-2011 (latest published ward level data)92. Wards with fewer than five conceptions in the period have their rate suppressed. During the period 2009-2011, there is significant variation in the teenage conception rate across different wards in Norfolk, with three wards having a rate significantly lower than the national rate, 17 wards having a rate significantly higher than the national rate, and the remaining wards being either not significantly different from the national rate or having fewer than five conceptions during the period. The wards that have higher rates than the national average are concentrated in and around the urban areas of Norwich, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn and Thetford. The latest figures show an improvement on the period 2005-2007 when Norfolk had 24 wards with significantly higher rates than the national average, and included wards in Watton, Dereham, Sheringham and Cromer. Figure 7.1: Under 18 conception rates (compared with England rate) for Norfolk wards, 2009-2011

Source: EMPHO teenage pregnancy ward level mapping tool

92 EMPHO teenage pregnancy ward level mapping tool (data provided by ONS). Available at: http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=116358

Supported by BIPS Page 63 of 80

Healthy Start scheme Healthy Start is a government scheme93 designed to help give children the best nutritional start in life by making healthy eating more affordable and providing the essential vitamins needed by mothers and babies. Good nutrition, ideally supported by breastfeeding, is one of the key factors in a child’s healthy development. Healthy Start provides vouchers (subject to eligibility criteria) that can be spent on fresh fruit, vegetables and milk in many supermarkets and local shops. The scheme also provides coupons which can be exchanged for women’s and children’s vitamins with the NHS locally. The Healthy Start application form must be signed by a health professional, encouraging women and families to make contact with local health services, which is an opportunity for health professionals and those working with pregnant women and young families to provide information and support about subjects like healthy eating, breastfeeding, vitamin supplements and nutrition. This is important because around eight per cent of children under the age of five in the UK do not have enough vitamin A; families in lower income groups tend to have less vitamin C; 94 and all pregnant and breastfeeding women are at risk of vitamin D deficiency, especially teenagers, younger women and those from some ethnic minorities95. Healthy Start Scheme voucher uptake in Norfolk for 2013/14 (Table 7.19) is better than the regional average and the vitamin uptake rate for both children and women in Norfolk is better than regional and national rates. However, this means that around 5,500 Norfolk women accessed the scheme (out of around 7,400 who were eligible), suggesting that there were almost 2,000 women entitled to it who did not take it up. Over 1,500 eligible women did not claim the free vitamins, and there were over 4,300 families not claiming the vitamins for their eligible children. Table 7.19: Norfolk Healthy Start Scheme uptake (%), 2013/14

Healthy Start

vouchers uptake %

Children's vitamins uptake

% (estimated)

Women's vitamins uptake

% (estimated) Norfolk 74.1% 3.2% 4.3% East of England 71.4% 1.5% 1.9% National 75.2% 2.0% 2.9% Source: NHS Business Services Authority, 2014 Child and adolescent mental health The British Child and Adolescent Mental Health Survey found that one in ten children under the age of 16 years have a diagnosable mental health condition. Many mental health problems do not emerge until later in childhood and into adolescence,

93 Information about the Healthy Start scheme is available at: http://www.norfolkslivingwell.org.uk/my-childs-health/healthy-start-vouchers/ 94 Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (2008) The nutritional wellbeing of the British population (SACN 2008a) 95 Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (2007) Update on vitamin D (SACN 2007)

Supported by BIPS Page 64 of 80

however, disruptive behaviour at age two to four, although outgrown by many, has been shown to continue into school age in a significant proportion of cases. There is rapid development from birth to five, so it can be particularly difficult to diagnose conditions. The most common conditions that develop in children between the ages of 5-19 are emotional disorders, including anxiety and depression, and conduct disorders and hyperkinetic disorder (also known as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). There are certain risk factors that seem to be associated with higher levels of mental health conditions, these include social disadvantage, having a lone parent or a family with step children and low educational attainment in parents. Looked after children were also identified in the mental health strategy for England as being a particularly vulnerable group to developing mental health problems. A survey is conducted with looked after children that are 5-19 years of age, to assess level of difficulty, which is a measure of social and emotional wellbeing. In Norfolk in 2012/13 the average score of children that had been in care for at least twelve months was 14.4 - a score below 14 is considered normal and 14-16 is borderline cause for concern, whilst over 17 is a cause for concern. Norfolk scores slightly higher on average than the East of England (14.2) and England (14.0). 96 Referral figures show that the Norfolk Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) had 3,833 referrals in 2012. There is significant inequality in childhood mental health across Norfolk. Of referrals made in the Norfolk and Waveney CCG area in 2012, 40% were made in Great Yarmouth and Waveney alone. It is difficult to conclude from these figures whether this is a reflection of a higher prevalence of mental health problems in Great Yarmouth and Waveney or a lower threshold of symptoms for which referrals are made. Emotional disorders were the most frequently referral classification (79% of classified cases), followed by conduct disorders (29%) and self-harm (13%). 97

96 Norfolk Healthy Child Programme for Children from Birth to Five Years, August 2014 97 Norfolk Healthy Child Programme for Children and Young People (5-19 years old), May 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 65 of 80

8 Place This section focuses on housing, access and safety issues and the impact the place you grow up in can have on poverty and life chances.

8.1 Housing It is well recognised that good quality and affordable homes are important for people’s health and well-being. Such homes are a key element in developing thriving, sustainable communities where crime is reduced and where educational opportunities, employment and life chances are improved. Affordability The ratio of house prices to earnings is one measure of how affordable it is to buy a property. The higher the ratio, the less affordable it is for households to get onto the property ladder. Norfolk’s ratio of lower quartile house price to lower quartile income has tended to follow the regional and national trends since 2004, but remains higher than the national rate. This means that Norfolk has higher house prices in relation to income, based on lower quartile ratios, than seen nationally. The trend rose from 2004 to 2007, then fell for a couple of years, and fluctuated from 2010 until 2013. In 2013 the Norfolk ratio was 6.96, compared with England’s lower ratio of 6.45. This means that low earners in Norfolk will tend to find access to housing more difficult to afford. The most affordable area in Norfolk is Great Yarmouth, with a ratio in 2013 of 5.91, with the least affordable area being North Norfolk with a ratio of 7.81.98 Average house sale prices are based on price paid data from the Land Registry, and show that Norfolk prices have tended to follow the general trend of the East of England and of England over the past two decades. Although the trend has been similar, the value of Norfolk’s house prices remains lower than the comparator areas (Figure 8.1). For example, in 2013, Norfolk’s average house price (all dwelling types) was around £162,800, compared with around £207,900 for the region and around £201,900 nationally – this is 28% lower than regional prices and 24% lower than national prices.99 North Norfolk (£183,000), South Norfolk (£182,000) and Broadland (£179,000) continue to have the highest average house prices in the county, with Great Yarmouth (£135,000) having the lowest. The average house price in Norfolk is now eight times the county’s average annual gross pay.100

98 Norfolk Insight (CLG), 2014 99 ONS and Land Registry, 2015. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Housing+Market#tab-data-tables 100 ONS, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2015. Table 8.7a

Supported by BIPS Page 66 of 80

Figure 8.1: Average house sale prices (£), 1995 to 2013

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Norfolk East of England England

Source: ONS and Land Registry, 2015 More than half of Norfolk’s dwellings are valued as council tax bands A and B, relating to the two most affordable property price bands. The proportions of property in these two valuation bands in Broadland (34%) and South Norfolk (40%) are well below this average with Norwich (76%) and Great Yarmouth (68%) having higher proportions of these more affordable types of properties.101 Social housing stock in Norfolk Of the total households in Norfolk, 7.3% is rented from local authorities and 8.6% is rented from a social landlord (a registered social landlord, housing association, housing co-operative or charitable trust). Table 8.1 shows that there is wide variation across Norfolk’s districts, with Breckland having the largest proportion of social rented housing stock (11.4%) and Great Yarmouth having the lowest (3.4%). However, if all social housing stock is included (social rented and Local Authority), Norwich has the highest proportion at 32.6% and Broadland the lowest at 8.6%.102

101 Norfolk Insight (CLG), 2014 102 Norfolk Insight, 2011 Census. Available at: http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/dataviews/tabular?viewId=184&geoId=5&subsetId=

Supported by BIPS Page 67 of 80

Table 8.1: Social housing stock, 2011

Local Authority Area All social housing stock (LA and social housing)

Social rented housing only

Breckland 13.8% 11.4% Broadland 8.6% 7.7% Great Yarmouth 17.2% 3.4% King's Lynn & West Norfolk 13.3% 10.2% North Norfolk 12.8% 10.4% Norwich 32.6% 7.4% South Norfolk 11.3% 8.6% Norfolk 15.9% 8.6% Source: Norfolk Insight (Census), 2011 Private Rents Average private weekly rents in Norfolk are lower than the England average. In 2014, the average weekly rent was £85.37 compared with £92.30 for England. This represents an 18.8% increase in average private weekly rent in Norfolk since 2011, compared with a national average increase of 17.9%. Average rents vary across Norfolk, with a 10.4% difference in average rents between the cheapest (King’s Lynn & West Norfolk at £81.06) and the most expensive (Broadland at £89.48).103

8.2 Homelessness The proportions of all people who are homeless and in priority need in 2013-14 for Norfolk are given at Table 8.2. Those accepted as in priority need are those that the local authority needs to re-house on an emergency basis, and gives an indication of housing pressures in the area. During 2013-14, Norfolk’s rate was 1.51 per 1,000 households, which means that 574 people were homeless and in priority need. Norfolk’s rate is lower than the regional (2.31) and national (2.32) rates. At 122 people, Broadland has the highest number of homeless people in priority need in the county. Table 8.2: All people homeless and in priority need, 2013-14 per 1,000 households Number Breckland 1.00 56 Broadland 2.26 122 Great Yarmouth 2.63 113 King's Lynn & West Norfolk 1.66 106 North Norfolk 1.91 90 Norwich 0.94 58 South Norfolk 0.54 29 Norfolk 1.51 574 East of England 2.31 5,742 England 2.32 52,270 Source: Norfolk Insight (CLG), 2014

103 Norfolk Insight, 2014 CLG private rent providers. Available at: http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/dataviews/tabular?viewId=146&geoId=5&subsetId=

Supported by BIPS Page 68 of 80

Figure 8.2 shows how Norfolk compares with the region and nationally in terms of all people homeless and in priority need (per 1,000 households), compared with 2011-12. Over the two year period, Norfolk’s rate has fallen and remains lower than the comparator areas. Figure 8.2: All people homeless and in priority need (per 1,000 households), 2011-12 to 2013-14

Source: Norfolk Insight (CLG), 2014 The housing and homelessness charity Shelter104 brings together government data on housing need, supply, affordability and other issues at a local, regional and national level. The number of households including dependent children who have had a duty to re-house accepted by their local authority during the period 2005 to 2014 for Norfolk is shown at Figure 8.3. In overall terms, the level has halved over the past decade. At the beginning of 2005, there were 200 families with children accepted as homeless in Norfolk, and this has reduced to 100 by 2014. Although the quarterly data shows fluctuation, there was a general decline from 2005 until 2009, when the figures tended to flatten somewhat. Latest data for 2014 Q2 stands at 100 families with children accepted as homeless, which is the highest level since 2008 Q1.

104 Shelter - http://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/housing_databank

Supported by BIPS Page 69 of 80

Figure 8.3: Families with children accepted as homeless, 2005 Q1 to 2014 Q2

Source: Shelter Housing Databank, DCLG P1e returns, 2015 The number of households including dependent or expected children who are housed in temporary accommodation by their local authority during the period 2005 to 2014, waiting either for a decision on their application or for settled accommodation to become available for Norfolk is shown at Figure 8.4. Although the quarterly data shows fluctuation, there has been a steep decline from 2005 to 2010, when the figures tend to flatten somewhat. Latest data for 2014 Q2 stands at 123 households with dependent children in temporary accommodation, which is the highest level since 2010 Q3. Figure 8.4: Households with dependent children in temporary accommodation, 2005 Q1 to 2014 Q2

Source: Shelter Housing Databank, DCLG P1e returns, 2015

Supported by BIPS Page 70 of 80

The number of dependent or expected children who are part of households which are housed in temporary accommodation by their local authority during the period 2005 to 2014, waiting either for a decision on their application or for settled accommodation to become available for Norfolk is shown at Figure 8.5. Although the quarterly data shows fluctuation, there has been a steep decline from 2005 to 2010, when the figures tend to flatten somewhat. Latest data for 2014 Q2 stands at 196 children in temporary accommodation, which is higher than the previous two quarter. Figure 8.5: Number of children in temporary accommodation, 2005 Q1 to 2014 Q2

Source: Shelter Housing Databank, DCLG P1e returns, 2015

8.3 Fuel poverty The impact of cold housing on health and the stresses brought on by living in fuel poverty have been recognised for decades by researchers, medical professionals and policy makers. At the same time, it is an issue that often gets dismissed as our housing stock is old and cold housing is so widespread that many have come to regard it as a normal state of affairs. There is a social gradient in fuel poverty - the lower your income the more likely you are to be at risk of fuel poverty. Cold housing negatively affects children’s educational attainment, emotional well-being and resilience, and significant negative effects of cold housing are evident in terms of infants’ weight gain, hospital admission rates, developmental status, and the severity and frequency of asthmatic symptoms. 105

105 The Marmot Review Team for Friends of the Earth (2011) The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty. Available at: http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/the-health-impacts-of-cold-homes-and-fuel-poverty/the-health-impacts-of-cold-homes-and-fuel-poverty-full-report.pdf

Supported by BIPS Page 71 of 80

The Census 2011 shows that almost 9,000 households in Norfolk do not have central heating. This equates to 2.4% of households in the county, compared with 2.0% for the region and 2.7% for England. Great Yarmouth (3.7%) and North Norfolk (3.4%) are the worst local authority areas in the county for proportions of households with no central heating. Under the Low Income High Cost definition, a household is considered to be fuel poor where they have required fuel costs that are above average (the national median level), and were they to spend that amount, they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line. There are two parts to the low income high cost measure: the number of households that have both low incomes and high fuel costs, and the depth of fuel poverty amongst these households. This is measured in terms of a fuel poverty gap, which represents the difference between the modelled fuel bill for each household, and the reasonable cost threshold for the household. Fuel poverty figures are calculated across two years, and so energy prices, income changes and changes in the housing stock for two years need to be considered when viewing these figures. For example, the 2012 data is based on household incomes, bills and dwellings in 2011 and 2012. In 2012, around 35,000 households in Norfolk were estimated to be in fuel poverty (Table 8.3), which is 9.5% of all households. Norfolk has a worse rate than the East of England (8.6%), but a better rate than England (10.4%). Norwich has the greatest proportion of households in the county estimated to be in fuel poverty (12.2%), with North Norfolk (11.2%) and Great Yarmouth (10.7%) also having fuel poverty rates higher than the county average. Table 8.3: Households in fuel poverty, 2012

Estimated number of households in

fuel poverty % of households

fuel poor Breckland 4,603 8.5 Broadland 3,552 6.7 Great Yarmouth 4,440 10.7 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 5,705 9.2 North Norfolk 5,077 11.2 Norwich 7,272 12.2 South Norfolk 4,369 8.4 Norfolk 35,018 9.5 East of England 206,319 8.6 England 2,282,579 10.4

Source: Norfolk Insight (DECC), 2014

Supported by BIPS Page 72 of 80

8.4 Access The Census 2011 shows that in Norfolk, around 18.8% of households do not have access to a car or a van (Table 8.4). The urban areas of Norwich and Great Yarmouth have the highest proportions of households without access, and this is generally due to the urban areas and service centres having better public transport links. Table 8.4: % of households with no access to cars or vans, 2011 % Breckland 15.52 Broadland 11.45 Great Yarmouth 27.20 King's Lynn & West Norfolk 16.43 North Norfolk 16.19 Norwich 33.36 South Norfolk 11.66 Norfolk 18.84 East of England 18.55 England 25.80 Source: Census, 2011 Research from 2010106 shows that whilst in rural areas more households have access to a car or van, there are some rural hotspots where no or limited access to a vehicle means that getting access to services is problematic. Figure 8.6 shows the proportions of households in Norfolk with no access to a vehicle, with the darker areas of the map representing higher proportions with no access. This shows that all areas are effected to some extent, with the urban areas and service centres being effected most, and with other hotspots scattered around the county.

106 OCSI & NRCC (April 2010) Deprived Rural Areas in Norfolk. Available at: http://www.norfolkrcc.org.uk/wiki/index.php/OCSI_report_into_Deprivation_in_Rural_Norfolk

Supported by BIPS Page 73 of 80

Figure 8.6: % of households with no access to cars or vans, by LSOA, 2011

Source: Norfolk Insight (Census), 2011 Access to GP services and hospitals In 2013, around 83% of Norfolk households are within 15 minutes of a GP using public transport or by walking (Figure 8.7), with the rate improving to around 98% for access within 30 minutes. Norwich and Great Yarmouth tend to raise the Norfolk average, with South Norfolk households being least likely to access a GP within 15 minutes by public transport or by walking.

Supported by BIPS Page 74 of 80

Figure 8.7: Access to a GP by public transport or walking, 2013

Source: Norfolk Insight (Department for Transport), 2013 Around 46% of Norfolk households are within 30 minutes of a hospital using public transport or by walking (Figure 8.8), with the rate improving to around 81% for access within 60 minutes. Norwich and Great Yarmouth tend to raise the Norfolk average, with Broadland households being least likely to access a hospital within 30 minutes by public transport or by walking. Figure 8.8: Access to hospital by public transport or walking, 2013

Source: Norfolk Insight (Department for Transport), 2013

Supported by BIPS Page 75 of 80

8.5 Rural deprivation Norfolk’s land area is around 95% rural, including smaller towns and their fringes, villages and hamlets, and this area includes a little over half the county’s population. Research by the Norfolk Rural Community Council107 found that the most deprived rural areas in Norfolk are characterised by higher levels of unemployment, higher levels of adults with no qualifications, and workless people in rural areas are more likely to be workless due to poor health reasons than in the larger settlements. The research revealed a number of rural hotspots of deprivation which are often masked by more affluent surrounding areas - Figure 8.9 shows the areas of Norfolk ranked among the most deprived 20% in England. Figure 8.9: Norfolk areas ranked among the most deprived in England, 2010

Source: OCSI & NRCC, April 2010

8.6 Safety In 2012, the Child Accident Prevention Trust reported in their inequalities and deprivation briefing that children from deprived families are far more likely to be killed, disabled or seriously injured in preventable accidents. They also report that whilst the overall number of accidental child deaths has fallen in recent years, the percentage of deaths amongst the poorest children has risen revealing “persistent and widening inequalities between socio-economic groups for childhood deaths from accidents”.108

107 OCSI & NRCC (April 2010), Deprived Rural Areas in Norfolk. Available at: http://www.norfolkrcc.org.uk/wiki/index.php/OCSI_report_into_Deprivation_in_Rural_Norfolk 108Child Accident Prevention Trust (CAPT) (March 2012) Inequalities and deprivation topic briefing. Available at: http://www.makingthelink.net/sites/default/files/Inequalities%20topic%20briefing%20March%202012.pdf

Supported by BIPS Page 76 of 80

The same briefing explains that the reasons for childhood accident inequalities are complex but include:

• overcrowded homes • lack of money to buy safety equipment • lack of a garden in which children can play • greater exposure to through-roads and roads without parking • higher parental smoking rates – poorer parents are more likely to smoke,

smoking is a major cause of house fires, and households with smokers are less likely to have working smoke alarms

• lack of accessible information – disadvantaged parents are six times more likely to have serious literacy problems. Parents who are long-term unemployed, young parents and parents from deprived black and minority ethnic communities are over-represented among those with poor literacy

• parental understanding of child development, with deprived parents more likely to be taken by surprise by the next stage of their child’s development

Domestic violence and abuse (DVA) Although local police data is the most comprehensive information for describing the incidence of DVA, issues of underreporting need to be taken into consideration as comparisons with the Crime Survey for England & Wales shows that police data probably captures only a proportion of incidents. This should be kept in mind when interpreting the following data. During 2013/14, there were in excess of 13,100 DVA incidents (crime and non-crime) reported to the police in Norfolk, of which 48% had a child associated with the incident – that means someone under the age of 18 who was either on scene at the time of the incident, or normally lives with or has regular contact with one of the people involved in the incident. The number of incidents involving children has gradually increased over the past three years, roughly in line with the trend in reported incidents. There was considerable variation in the reported rate of DVA incidents with an associated child across Norfolk, with Norwich and Great Yarmouth experiencing higher rates than the Norfolk average. Each district in Norfolk had at least two areas (LSOAs) which experienced higher rates of DVA, with an associated child, compared with the Norfolk average, showing that DVA effecting children and young people is a countywide issue. The number of effected children decreases with age, with 0 to 5 year olds accounting for approximately half (48.2%) of all affected children. For half of all children associated with a reported domestic incident the perpetrator was the child’s father and for just under one fifth of children the mother was the perpetrator. There is a clear association with levels of deprivation – the rate of DVA increases as the level of deprivation increases, with the incidence of domestic abuse with a child being twice as high among children living in the 40% most deprived areas compared to children living in rest of Norfolk.109

109 Norfolk County Council (December 2014) Domestic Violence and Abuse Needs Assessment for Children and Young People in Norfolk. Available at: http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/resource/view?resourceId=1055

Supported by BIPS Page 77 of 80

Road traffic casualties There is evidence to suggest unequal risk of road injury between different socio-economic groups caused by differences in social environment, culture, education, work, and psychological factors which lead to safe or unsafe road behaviour. Those from the most deprived groups are much more at risk than those least deprived, and the difference between the two groups is increasing. Understanding the distribution of deprivation and different socio-economic groups within Norfolk can aid appropriate and effective targeting of road safety intervention schemes. In 2013 there were 69 collisions with killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties involving persons aged 17-25 as a car driver in at least one vehicle in the collision (21% of KSI collisions) in Norfolk. From these collisions there were 92 KSI casualties (23% of all KSI casualties). Seventy-six car drivers involved in KSI collisions were aged 17 to 25 in 2013 (13% of all drivers/riders involved in KSI collisions), with two-thirds being male. There were no significant differences in collision involvement rates from young populations resident in each district in Norfolk during 2013, although rates have increased in every district apart from Broadland and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk. For 2013, there has been no significant change in deprivation profiles of younger drivers in collisions compared with the baseline (2007-11 data) - the highest involvement rates are still for people from the middle deprivation quintile110 of areas. Younger motorcycle riders are still the largest contributors to motorcycle KSI numbers, with those aged 17-25 involved in 42 of 106 motorcycle KSI collisions (40%) in 2013. Compared with the 2007-11 baseline, the crude rate of KSI pedestrian casualties per 100,000 people increased across nearly all age groups, but especially for people aged 26-69 (from 3.8 to 7.6) and those aged 0-15 (from 8.3 to 11.0). In 2013, children (aged 0-15) had the highest rate of KSI pedestrian road casualties per 100,000 population (11), and one of the highest rates for pedestrian casualties of all severities (47). Pedestrians made up 59% of child KSI casualties and 39% of all casualties – which had increased from the 2007-11 period where child pedestrian casualties made up 43% of child KSI and 31% of all severity casualties. There are inequalities apparent between different socioeconomic groups in Norfolk, with KSI pedestrians most frequently from the most deprived quintile of areas in 2013. In 2013, young adults (aged 16-25) had the highest rate of pedal cyclist road casualties per 100,000 population overall (63). There was a decrease in the proportion of child (aged 0-15) casualties who were pedal cyclist casualties in 2013 compared to the 2007-11 average. Pedal cyclists accounted for 24% of KSI and 21% of all child casualties in 2007-11, but only accounted for 11% of KSI and 15% of all child casualties in 2013. Pedal cyclist casualties were most frequently from the most deprived quintile of areas in Norfolk.111

110 When results are ranked in order from lowest to highest, they can be divided into equal-sized groups. If divided into five groups, these are called 'quintiles'. 111 Norfolk County Council (February 2015) Road Casualties in Norfolk 2014. Available at: http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/resource/view?resourceId=1071

Supported by BIPS Page 78 of 80

9 Concluding remarks

The Child Poverty Act 2010 requires the local authority to prepare and publish an assessment of the needs of children living in poverty in its area. The needs assessment is the key driver to addressing child poverty within the local area as it builds a shared understanding of the issues and demonstrates the extent and nature of the local challenges. This is crucial to focusing attention and mobilising action on child poverty within the local authority and across wider partners. Norfolk’s CPNA provides the evidence and context for developing Norfolk’s strategic approach to tackling child poverty. The CPNA gives a greater understanding of the distribution and drivers of child poverty in Norfolk and where possible, how it varies across local areas. The needs assessment has been developed using the most up to date information available at the time of writing and can be used by a range of partners in planning service provision for children and young people in the county. It allows partners to use consistent datasets and information in their joint working. In producing the CPNA we are aware of some gaps in datasets and information and the expectation is that the document is refreshed on an annual basis. However, refreshed data and information are embedded in Norfolk Insight and within Norfolk’s online JSNA when they become available. This information can be found at - http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/jsna/youngpeople

Supported by BIPS Page 79 of 80

If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Norfolk County Council on 0344 800 8020 and we will do our best to help. If you have any queries about this publication please contact the Business Intelligence and Performance Service on 01603-222056 or email BI@norfolk.gov.uk www.norfolk.gov.uk April 2015

Page 80 of 80