child poverty needs assessment - Nottinghamshire County Council

FINAL24.2.11Nottinghamshire Child Poverty NeedsAssessmentFebruary 2011Developed by the Nottinghamshire Child PovertyReference GroupFor more information:email: irene.kakoullis@nottscc.gov.ukgeoff.hamilton@nottscc.gov.ukphone: 0115 9774431post: Children, Families & Cultural Services, Nottinghamshire County Council,County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7QPinternet: www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpoverty

ContentsPage1. IntroductionNottinghamshire’s vision 3What is poverty? 3 ‐ 4How do we measure child poverty? 4 ‐ 5Purpose of the Child Poverty Needs Assessment 5Methods 6 ‐ 7The building blocks of the Child Poverty Strategy 7 ‐ 8Who is most at risk? 8 ‐ 92. Place and delivery ‐ Key headlines 10 ‐ 113. Employment and skills ‐ Key headlines 12 – 164. Family and life chances ‐ Key headlines 16 – 195. Financial support ‐ Key headlines 19 ‐ 206. Data challenges 20 ‐ 227. Conclusions 22 ‐ 238. Recommendations 23 ‐ 26Appendix 1 Place and delivery ‐ Data Analysis 27 ‐ 79Appendix 2 Employment and skills ‐ Data Analysis 80 ‐ 117Appendix 3 Family and life chances ‐ Data Analysis 118 ‐ 169Appendix 4 Financial support ‐ Data Analysis 170 ‐ 188Appendix 5 ‘At risk’ groups – Matrix 189Appendix 6 Progress against relevant National Indicators 190 ‐ 195Appendix 7 Inter‐related local strategies 196Appendix 8 ICM survey social class definitions 197Appendix 9 Glossary 198 ‐ 2002

1. IntroductionNottinghamshire’s vision: Our ambition is for Nottinghamshire to be a place where children grow up free fromdeprivation and disadvantage, and birth and social background do not hold people back from achieving theirpotential.Nottinghamshire’s key objective: We will work together to reduce levels of child poverty and to mitigate the effectsof child poverty on children, young people and families, as well as on future generations. We will ensure that thereare less than 10% of children in Nottinghamshire who live in households with less than 60% of median income (in2010/11 that equates to less than £361 per week, before housing costs, for a couple with two children).I. What is Poverty?"Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtainthe type of diet, participate in the activities, and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or atleast widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong. Their resources are so seriously belowthose commanded by the average family that they are in effect excluded from the ordinary living patterns, customs,and activities 1 ."Findings from a 2007 assessment 2 of multiple deprivation in the City of Nottingham provide an excellent generaloverview of the dynamic of poverty:• The effects of deprivation are often cumulative and inter‐generational. Those who are poor for a long time, andfrequently, are most at risk of social exclusion. Persistent poverty affects workless families and single pensionerhouseholds most of all.• Long‐term dependence on benefits creates its own poverty. The longer someone is on Incapacity Benefit, theless likely they are to move back into work.• Work remains the most reliable route out of poverty (for those who can) and can help to revitalise localeconomies by tackling unemployment and economic inactivity. Some of the barriers to employment can beovercome by targeting job creation in areas of unemployment.• Education is a significant driver to reducing social exclusion and poverty, because it is directly linked withprospects for employment and earnings potential. Cycles of low aspiration and achievement need to be brokenby raising the aspirations of parents and children and standards in all schools.• Early years interventions can be effective in improving later attainment. Adult and community learning andlifelong education also make a positive difference to ‘upskill’ people and increase their opportunities.• Social housing can be a cause of deprivation, where tenants become trapped in a cycle of immobility, as lack ofemployment and other disadvantages cause them to become eligible for social housing. Subsequentdependency on welfare support, the ‘poverty trap’, and sometimes the difficulties of moving home as a socialtenant can then become barriers to them accessing work.• Poor health, such as problem drug use, alcohol misuse, mental health issues and teenage motherhood, candisadvantage people in the labour market. It can also compound other aspects of deprivation – drug andalcohol abuse, in particular, negatively impacts on the wider community.• The majority of people involved in crime are influenced by factors around them to get involved in it, such ascommunity deprivation and income inequalities. Strong communities can help to reduce crime through informalsocial monitoring and control, in addition to partnership working, targeting/case management and delivering acritical mass of interventions in crime hot‐spots.• The spatial concentration of deprived households can accentuate the problems and can affect health, childdevelopment, income poverty, educational attainment and employment opportunities in adverse ways.1 Peter Townsend (1979) ‘ Poverty in the UK’ p 31 as cited on Child Poverty Action Group website (09.09.10)2 Tackling Deprivation in Nottingham: Towards a 2020 Roadmap, SQW Consulting, 20073

It is important to note that whilst children in out of work families are more likely to be in relative poverty than thosewhere at least one parent is in work, about half of children in relative poverty are in families where a parent works.Tackling child poverty is therefore not just about families reliant on the benefits system.II.How Do We Measure Child Poverty?Nationally, Government aims to reduce child poverty to 10% or less by 2020 ‐ Nottinghamshire is also workingtowards this target. The proportion of children in relative poverty is calculated as follows:This forms the National Indicator (NI) 116 data which is used consistently throughout this needs assessment, as itmeasures the proportion of children living in families in receipt of out of work (means‐tested) benefits or in receiptof tax credits, where their reported income is less than 60% of median equivalised 3 household income 4 . NI 116measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole.Low income is the most commonly used measure of poverty, as it provides a broad indication of the living standardsof families. Evidence suggests low income impacts on life chances, when children fall too far behind the typicalfamily, not able to take a full part in the activities that social inclusion demands.Levels of child poverty in Nottinghamshire are slightly below the national and regional estimates. There arecurrently 16.8% of children (under the age of 20) living in poverty in the county. This equates to 27,080 children, ofwhich 23,990 (17.4%) are under the age of 16 5 . Since 2007, there has been a 0.1% reduction in the number ofchildren living in poverty (progress should be intensified if Nottinghamshire’s vision of less than 10% of childrenliving in poverty by 2020 is to be achieved).Across districts there is some variation in the percentage of children living in poverty. In 2008, there were 21.7% ofchildren in poverty in Ashfield, 18.3% in Bassetlaw, 14.2% in Broxtowe, 15.0% in Gedling, 22.7% in Mansfield, 16.8%in Newark and Sherwood and 7.9% in Rushcliffe. All districts have a greater proportion of under 16’s who live inpoverty 6 . All districts, including Rushcliffe, have wards with over 10% of children living in poverty 7 .This data set is available nationally and can be broken down to district, ward and Lower Super Output Area (LSOA).The latest data available is for 2008. Data sets are available at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐taxcredits/child_poverty.htm.By looking at NI 116 data at ward or LSOA, we can see the variation within authorities. Itshows that even authorities with low levels of deprivation overall can have pockets where deprivation is above thenational average. Local maps are available to download from www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpovertyThe Government will be publishing its Child Poverty Strategy in March 2011. Nationally, additional measures will beused to measure how many children experience absolute low income, persistent poverty and experience materialdeprivation and low income combined. There is no expectation that this data will be collected locally, but nationaldata, when published, will further help shape the local strategy and targeting of interventions to those most in need.The following information provides definitions of these additional measures of poverty:• Absolute low income ‐ this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in realterms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low‐income threshold for the baseline year of 1998‐99,3 Equivalisation ‐ income data is adjusted to take into account variations in both the size and composition of the household. This processreflects the notion that a family of several people needs a higher income than a single person in order for both households to enjoy acomparable standard of living. Equivalisation is needed in order to make sensible income comparisons between households.4 Measuring Child Poverty, Department for Work and Pensions, December 20035 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm6 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm7 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm4

expressed in today’s prices 8 . The indicator captures whether low income families see their real incomes increaseover time. It tells us what is happening to real incomes – whether the incomes of the poorest are rising inabsolute terms, not just in comparison to the incomes of typical families. It can be used as a ‘yardstick’ by whichto assess progress for the poorest of all.• Material deprivation and low income combined ‐ this indicator provides a wider measure of people’s livingstandards, it measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and havean income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income 9 . The indicator captures whetherfamilies’ living standards are improving because it can capture living standards more directly. Deprivationmeasures resonate well with the public perception of poverty and the view that a poverty measure shouldencompass some idea of the practical effects of living in low income.There is a strong relationship between material deprivation and persistent low income; as the time spent in lowincome increases, the severity of deprivation increases.• Persistent poverty is measured as children in households in relative low income for at least three of the last fouryears. By identifying children experiencing persistent poverty we can capture the proportion of children whoexperience low income over the long‐term. The length of time a child is in poverty and how often it recurs canhave a significant detrimental impact on their experiences and life chances. Children who live in persistentpoverty are more likely than those who experience temporary poverty to be at risk of worse outcomes, and theyhave a lower chance of escaping low income as the length of time in poverty increases.III.The annual poverty figures provide an indicator of children experiencing low income over a number of years 10 .They show the percentage of children in households with incomes below different income thresholds in at leastthree out of the last four years. Living for long periods on a low income is more likely to damage children’schances than much shorter periods. National figures show that around one in ten children experiencepersistently low income before housing costs are accounted for, and nearly one in five after housing costs areaccounted for.Purpose of the Child Poverty Needs AssessmentBefore we embark on developing and implementing a strategy to tackle child poverty, we need to carry out athorough needs assessment with our partners to identify the key issues facing children and their families inNottinghamshire. When the needs assessment is complete, we will be able to develop a strategy that will meetidentified needs to improve outcomes for those most in need of interventions.The Nottinghamshire needs assessment will help to provide:a) a deeper understanding of the characteristics of families with children living in poverty in Nottinghamshireand where they are situated, demonstrating a clear understanding of what child poverty looks like locallyb) an understanding of the key drivers of child poverty in the area and the links with local service provisionc) an understanding of relevant local service provision across the authority and its partners, their suitability,culture and available resources, including the extent to which the workforce across all partner bodies is ableto understand and address child povertyd) links to other assessments and strategic plans and an indication of when best the child poverty assessmentshould be reviewed and revisede) a better understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to tackling child povertyf) a solid foundation for the development of the local child poverty strategy.8 Measuring Child Poverty, Department for Work and Pensions, December 20039 Measuring Child Poverty, Department for Work and Pensions, December 200310 Child Poverty Action Group 2008 ‘Child Poverty Stats Analysis of the latest poverty statistics’ (Drawn from the British Household PanelSurvey)5

IV.MethodsA local child poverty reference group was established in October 2010. This group started to plan what would berequired for the needs assessment, which was further helped by the publication of national guidance on developinga needs assessment in September 2010. A list of questions were identified which would inform the development ofa Nottinghamshire child poverty strategy.A needs assessment task and finish group was established in November 2010 to agree the questions that we wantedto find the answers to, which would inform a future child poverty strategy. The task and finish group was tasked todevelop the needs assessment and make recommendations for inclusion in a local child poverty strategy. Sincerethanks are due to colleagues from a variety of partner agencies who sat on these two groups for their valued input.Once questions were agreed, the task and finish group identified what data was available that would help to answerthe questions and identify a local picture of child poverty. Members were asked to provide data and two leadmembers were asked to co‐ordinate the collection and analysis of data, as well as contacting local organisations foradditional information.In some areas, quantitative data would not help answer questions so existing consultation findings were used toidentify additional, qualitative data. Where data was not available, questions were not ignored but rather theseformed a list of future data challenges, which will be addressed as part of the Child Poverty Strategy.A service/intervention mapping exercise was also undertaken to identify what services and interventions wereavailable to reduce child poverty or mitigate the affects of child poverty. This was undertaken using an onlinequestionnaire – there were 162 responses, so information included is not a comprehensive list of all servicesavailable. There are additional challenges, because at the time of writing the needs assessment, funding forinterventions from 1 st April 2011 was not yet secure. The findings of the mapping exercise are used throughout thisneeds assessment, including a number of key recommendations. The full report is available online atwww.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpovertyIn addition, a review of the evidence of what works to tackle child poverty was carried out to help shape theforthcoming strategy. This is will soon be available to download from www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpovertyThe questions included in the Nottinghamshire Child Poverty Needs Assessment are broad ranging and focus on thechild poverty pyramid 11 detailed below. The pyramid represents our understanding of the factors that impact onchild poverty. It is important to note that the orange sections at the top of the pyramid are the most important interms of getting children out of poverty, although they are the most challenging to affect. This, however, does notmean that this work should not happen. We need to be careful that we do not focus all of our energies on tacklingthe indirect factors which influence families’ abilities to escape poverty, to the detriment of the direct factors such asemployment and financial support.11 Child Poverty Unit 20106

The pyramid is also a useful tool to argue the case for early intervention; by tackling the factors that influencefamilies’ resources today we reduce the risk of families facing poor outcomes in later years.ChildPovertyFactors that directly influence families’resources and incomes todayFinancialSupport(tax credits,benefits &childmaintenance)Parentalemployment& earningsCosts(eg. housing,utilities)Factors that directly influence families’ abilities to enter andsustain well paid employment in the short and longer term.EducationAdult SkillsChildcareTransportJobavailabilityFactors that indirectly influence families’ abilities to enter and sustain well paid employmentand escape poverty now and in the futureChildren’soutcomesFinancialInclusionAccess toservices andfacilitiesHealthTeenagepregnancyRelationshipbreakdownCrime,drug &alcoholuse.V. The Building Blocks of a Child Poverty Needs AssessmentThe national Child Poverty Strategy focuses on four ‘Building Blocks of Child Poverty’, underpinned by attention to atrisk groups. These provide a powerful framework for the engagement of all key partners in progressing thedevelopment of a local strategy and needs assessment.The needs assessment is structured around each of the four building blocks. Each building block includes informationon who is most at risk and what interventions are available for particular groups at risk of child poverty.PLACE & DELIVERYFAMILY & LIFECHANCESEMPLOYMENT &SKILLSFINANCIALSUPPORTAT RISK GROUPSThe detail of each building block is provided below:• Place and delivery: focuses on housing, transport, crime and communities. Localism and the 'big society'approach are driving the agenda, and services are being encouraged to establish a clearer picture of their roleand the impact of their regional and area‐based activities on decreasing child poverty.• Employment and skills: covers unemployment, promoting parental employment by addressing barriers to work,lack of skills and labour market experience, lack of childcare and flexible working arrangements. It also looks at‘in‐work’ poverty.• Family and life chances: recognises that there are significant barriers to some disadvantaged children and youngpeople achieving positive health, educational and future employment outcomes. The aim is to remove these7

arriers through interventions at key stages and help reduce inter‐generational poverty. The approach is toinvestigate which policies show evidence of having a positive impact on children living in poverty and thenidentify what further action is needed to improve these outcomes.• Financial support: explores the potential for benefits to have a positive impact on child poverty, by increasingtake up by vulnerable groups and improving work incentives for workless households. The building block alsoexplores financial inclusion, debt and capability to help some of the most vulnerable engage with the benefitsystem and other forms of support, in conjunction with voluntary and community sector organisations.VI.Who is most at risk?Groups and household types which potentially include children and most typically suffer low‐income and multipledeprivation at a national level are as follows (some of which overlap):• Families on low‐incomes – children in lone‐parent families are much more likely to live in low‐incomehouseholds than those in families with two adults, although there is a much lower likelihood if the single parentis working 2 . Large family households with more than three children have a 31% chance of relative poverty 12 .Children have a 53% risk of relative poverty in a family where at least one adult works part‐time 13 .• Disengaged young people – 16‐18 year olds not in education, employment and training are at particular risk,including those without Level 2 qualifications 14 . There are particular groups of children and young people at riskand these will be identified and explored further in the needs assessment.• There were 3.8 million working‐age people in workless households in 2006 15 , some of whom are unskilled withno qualifications. Children in workless households have a 59% chance of living in relative poverty 16 .• People with low skills and on low pay ‐ these are individuals who leave school with low levels of formalattainment. There were 10.1 million working‐age adults without an NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) and5.2 million people struggling with basic literacy and numeracy in 2006 17 . Approximately 60% of households onincomes equivalent to below 60% of the median earnings have at least one adult in work ‐ these are the ‘workingpoor’ 18 .• Social housing tenants, those in properties unfit for purpose and the homeless ‐ social housing tenants aremore likely to have low‐incomes and unstable employment (i.e. only 32% were in paid employment in 2006 19 ).They also tend to have a higher rate of disability, are more likely to be lone parents, or be aged over 60 20 .Children with one or more disabled adults (carers) have a 30% chance of being in relative poverty 21 .These groups and sub categories of these groups are identified throughout the needs assessment. A matrix isincluded in Appendix 6 which includes all cross‐referencing within the needs assessment of particular groups at risk.Data from the Households Below Average Income dataset in 2008/09 highlights that certain groups have a greaterrisk of relative poverty.12 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai13 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai14 Level 2 is defined as the entry level qualification to the labour market by the Leitch Review (2006). Leitch S., (2006), The Leitch Review ofSkills, Prosperity for all in the global economy ‐ world class skills, Stationery Office, London: HM Treasury15 Level 2 is defined as the entry level qualification to the labour market by the Leitch Review (2006). Leitch S., (2006), The Leitch Review ofSkills, Prosperity for all in the global economy ‐ world class skills, Stationery Office, London: HM Treasury16 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai17 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai Ibid18 Work includes part‐time work. DWP, 2005/06, Households below Average Income (HBAI) 1994/95‐2005/06, Chapter 5 ‘Working Age Adults’19 Hills, J, (2007), Ends and Means: the future roles of social housing in England20 Hills, J, (2007), Ends and Means: the future roles of social housing in EnglandIbid21 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai8

Risk of income poverty by household characteristics, 2008/09 22*Figures for ethnic groups are three year averages706059%58%Percentage of children in relative poverty5040302034%31%29%34%34%100Lone parent:Three ormore childrenWorklesshouseholdsDisabled adult, nodisabled childDisabled adult anddisabled childBlack & Black BritishPakistani/BangladeshiDisabilityMinority ethnicThe following diagram shows that children in workless households are at higher risk of living in relative poverty.However about half of children in relative poverty are in families where at least one parent works.The national picture – comparing out of work and in‐work relative poverty 2322 Households Below Average Income 2008/09 sourced through the Child Poverty Unit 2010 22 , Child Poverty Action Grouphttp://www.cpag.org.uk/povertyfacts/23 Child Poverty Unit 20109

2. Place and Delivery – Key HeadlinesLocal Child Poverty Levels and Hot Spots• Most recent data shows that 16.8% of children under the age of 20 live in poverty in Nottinghamshire ‐ thisequates to 27,080 children 24 .• There has been a 0.1% reduction in the number of children living in poverty between 2007 and 2008. Progressneeds to be intensified if Nottinghamshire’s vision of less than 10% of children living in poverty by 2020 is to beachieved.• Child poverty levels are similar to comparable local authority areas.• There is wide variation of child poverty levels across Nottinghamshire’s seven districts, with Mansfield andAshfield having the highest levels of child poverty.• All seven districts include wards where over 10% of children live in poverty.• Ravensdale Ward in Mansfield has 42.7% of all children under 20 years who live in poverty 25 ‐ this is the wardwith the highest level in the county.• Child poverty levels in districts remain fairly static and levels of child poverty are not reducing as fast as wewould like to see. Most recent data shows that in a number of districts, child poverty levels are increasing.• The contrasts within districts are stark – Gedling, for example, has a range of child poverty from 1.6% inRavenshead Ward to 37.8% in Killisick Ward. Even in the more deprived areas of Ashfield and Mansfield, thereare differences (such as from 4.8% in Berry Hill Ward in Mansfield up to 42.7% in Ravensdale Ward), thoughthese districts have less polarisation because the vast majority of wards are at levels above 10%.• All districts have LSOAs 26 with poverty levels below 3% and five of the seven districts have LSOAs with povertylevels above 50%.• Child poverty hotspot wards identified by NI 116 data are comparable with target wards for the IncomeDeprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) 2007 and the Child Well Being Index 2007.• In Nottinghamshire (as of January 2010), 12.55% of the whole school population were eligible for Free SchoolMeals (FSM). Numbers eligible for FSM were highest in Ashfield (16.53%) and Mansfield (16.21%) and lowest inRushcliffe (5.87%). The trend shows that an increasing proportion of pupils are eligible for FSM, most notably inprimary schools.At Risk Groups• Rural poverty is an issue in Nottinghamshire, almost 25% of income deprived households in Nottinghamshire livein rural households 27 .• Furthermore almost a quarter of all children and young people in income deprived households live in rural areasin Nottinghamshire. Over 6,000 children in rural areas live in households were nobody works.• By far the highest concentration of the Gypsy, Roma & Traveller (GRT) population is in Newark & Sherwood, andacross the county there is an estimated population of 1,500 GRT children in nearly 500 households.• Teenage parents are most likely to live in areas of greatest deprivation. Teenage conception hot spots arecomparable with child poverty hot spots across Nottinghamshire, with highest rates in Mansfield.• The highest proportions of lone parents live in Mansfield (15.96%), Ashfield (13.73%), Bassetlaw (13.17%) andGedling (13.09%). The lowest proportion live in Rushcliffe (9.35%).24 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm25 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm26 Lower Super Output Area ‐ an area with a population of about 1,500 people and approximately 400 households27 Rural Community Action Nottinghamshire, http://www.rcan.org.uk10

• It is vital to provide care leavers with a stable and secure base from which they can concentrate on acquiringemployability skills ‐ 91.5% of care leavers were in suitable accommodation in 2009/10, a slight drop from theprevious year (95.1%).• Crime and anti‐social behaviour hot spot wards correlate in the main with IDACI and child poverty target wardsacross Nottinghamshire. The public perception of parents taking enough responsibility for the behaviour of theirchildren also generally shows a relationship with the county’s picture of deprivation.Housing and Homelessness• The highest proportion of children living in overcrowded households in the county in 2001 were in Mansfield(8.19%) and Ashfield (7.91%), with the lowest in Rushcliffe (4.42%), though the national figure is considerablyhigher than any Nottinghamshire district.• On 31 st March 2009, just under 100 families in Nottinghamshire with dependent children were accommodated intemporary accommodation. However, the real extent of numbers of homeless families is not known and theseofficial figures represent only a proportion.• The proportion of young men aged 16 and 17 in the homeless population was four times higher than theNottinghamshire male population of the same age, and those aged 18 to 24 was nearly three times higher 28 .• A third of single people with dependent children in Nottinghamshire state that their homelessness was due to aviolent relationship breakdown with a partner. 15% of couples with children also cited violent breakdown in arelationship with a partner as being the cause of their homelessness 29 .• More than a quarter of children with presenting households were aged between five and ten years old (26%) 30 .• The numbers of 18‐25 year olds accepted as homeless by local authorities in the county has risen by 15% since2006/07. The highest numbers of homelessness acceptances are in Mansfield, although numbers are decreasing.• Only a quarter of the young people (above) had been to their local council for housing advice and support. Youngpeople want local authorities to make their support and advice services more accessible to encourage them toapproach in the early stages, before the problems escalate.• Very few young people are offered home visits or mediation when facing homelessness.• There are a substantial number of homeless young people who would like more support from Jobcentre Plus tofind work or training.• Young people are concerned about finding a permanent home, finding work and being able to live with partnersand children.• Of young people accessing supported accommodation, budgeting was their biggest support need both now andonce they were ready to move on. Nevertheless, the Tellus 4 survey found that a third of respondents said theyhad never been given advice on managing money (worse than statistical neighbours and the national average).Services and Interventions• The service mapping exercise identified that organisations tend to target their interventions to the areas ofgreatest deprivation and disadvantage.• Organisations highlight hidden pockets of poverty in rural or affluent areas and recommend that data isexamined at LSOA levels to identify levels of need to enable effective targeting.• There are a number of organisations which offer community development, regeneration, housing/accommodation, community safety and neighbourhood management services. However, funding for 2011/12and beyond is not yet secure and some interventions are due to cease at the end of 2010/11 due to budget cuts.28 General county population figures quoted here use 2001 census data.. Data includes Nottingham City.29 The full 2009 Homeless Watch Survey results can be accessed at: www.hlg.org.uk30 The full 2009 Homeless Watch Survey results can be accessed at: www.hlg.org.uk11

3. Employment and Skills – Key HeadlinesUnemployment• Unemployment is often strongly linked to unemployment in previous generations, meaning children living in lowincome or workless families are considered to be most at risk of struggling to find work in later life 31 . The areaswith the largest concentrations of these children represent the biggest challenge, as they have the greatestdanger of falling into a cycle of inter‐generational unemployment. Poverty itself is inter‐generational ‐ the largenumber of children in workless families could mean we are storing up problems for the future• There are significant concentrations of unemployment in several areas of the county caused by limiting longtermillness.• Ravensdale and Portland Wards in Mansfield have the highest unemployment rates, 7.9% and 6.4% respectively.Killisick Ward in Gedling also has a rate of 6.4%, and Worksop South East in Bassetlaw has a rate of 5.5%. At adistrict level, Mansfield has the highest level of unemployment with a rate of 3.8%. This is followed by Ashfield(3.6%) and Gedling (3.0%). By comparison, the county has a rate of 2.9%, the East Midlands is 3.3% and the UK is3.6%.• In Nottinghamshire in 2008, there were 20,605 children living in households reliant on Income Support or JobSeekers Allowance, of which 15,205 were in lone parent households 32 . When this data is broken down, districtsare ranked as follows: Ashfield (4,305), Mansfield (3,970), Bassetlaw (3,240), Newark & Sherwood (3,100),Gedling (2,530), Broxtowe (2,230) and Rushcliffe (1,230) 33 .• Nationally, nearly one in five children is in an out of work family and more than two in five are in a low income orout of work family. In Nottinghamshire (including the City), the percentages are higher, with 21.2% of children inan out of work family and 46.9% in an out of work or low income family.• Changes to the benefits system may improve matters if they encourage people to return to work, but again thisis dependent on improvements in the job market. There is also a danger that if changes to the benefits systemdo not result in people finding jobs, they may increase child poverty, as out of work families see a reduction intheir incomes. This would not be seen in the Tax Credit figures, but could have a real effect on poverty in termsof income.Employment and Opportunities• Nottingham and Nottinghamshire have a slightly higher proportion of unemployed than the UK, but as withemployment and economic activity, this average masks considerable differences between communities.• The 2010 Economic Assessment identified that the level of notified job vacancies in Nottingham andNottinghamshire has increased, a high proportion of these are in lower skilled occupations. It is, however,unclear if these posts are being filled by parents who have children under the age of 20 years.• 25% of those in employment work part‐time compared to 23.7% nationally. Part‐time working is much morecommon among female workers than males. In 2008/09, 41.4% of female workers in Nottingham andNottinghamshire were employed on a part‐time basis, compared to 11.1% of male workers. The public sectorand retail are the sectors with the greatest number of part‐time workers; the rest of the service sector also has ahigh proportion in part‐time employment 34 .• Most jobs are concentrated in urban areas, with smaller concentrations along major roads. The lowest numbersof jobs are in the north of the county 35 .• The local economy is diverse, but has high levels of employment in some at risk sectors, e.g. retail & distribution,manufacturing and the public sector. The public sector is the largest employer in Nottinghamshire andNottingham (30.2% of all jobs) but its structure varies across the county. The highest proportion of public sector31 Blanded J & Gibbons S (2006) The perspective of poverty across generations: a view from two British cohorts. Joseph Rowntree Foundation32 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm33 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm34 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspx35 Headline Economic Assessment 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council12

jobs is in Rushcliffe (41%). As the announced cuts are made in due course, employment rates in the county willprobably dip.• Nearly four fifths (77.9%) of Nottinghamshire’s labour supply are economically active, 1.4% above the nationalaverage. Of the working age group (16‐64) in Nottinghamshire, 73% work full‐time and 27% work part‐time.Women have a significantly higher proportion of part‐time work.• The southern boroughs have the highest employment rates, and rates are lowest in Mansfield.• The reducing employment rates in Nottinghamshire mirror the national and regional trends. Mansfield andBassetlaw have seen the steepest drop in employment rates since 2004.Education, Skills and Attitudes• Average qualification levels have increased across Nottinghamshire over the last decade, but on average remainbelow England averages. Qualifications remain an important determinant of whether an individual works or not,although this also depends upon the labour market.• On average, residents in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire have fewer qualifications than across England as awhole. 28% of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire residents are qualified to at least Level 4 (equivalent to a firstdegree), compared with 31% nationally 36 .• Unemployment is closely related to skills. One in seven of the working age population in Nottinghamshire hasno qualifications. This is a larger proportion than either the East Midlands or UK.• One in six of the working age population in Mansfield has no qualifications, followed by Bassetlaw, where one inseven has no qualifications 37 .• The 2010 Economic Assessment identified a need to up‐skill the existing workforce with a focus on growthsectors, to raise productivity and average wages and to create entry level opportunities for those currentlyunemployed. This is because workers in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire earn less than the UK average, and agreater proportion of residents have no qualifications than is the case nationally 38 .• According to the National Employer Skill Survey 39 , employers identified only 13% of their vacancies as ‘hard‐tofill’,compared to 22% in England.• Employers in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham identified only 8% and 11% respectively of vacancies as ‘skillsshortage vacancies’, compared to 16% in England.• When asked to look at their current workforce, 17% of employers in Nottinghamshire identified that one ormore of their staff were not fully proficient at their jobs. This is slightly below the England average (19%).• The differing needs of businesses, which are broadly bracketed as being linked to skills, emphasises theimportance of tackling child poverty and unemployment with business partners.• Self confidence and literacy/numeracy qualifications are a substantial barrier for parents to access employmentin Nottinghamshire.• Just over half of all parents and carers who enrolled in family learning courses in Nottinghamshire are from the150 most disadvantaged LSOAs in Nottinghamshire, and 69% of parents and carers came from the 200 mostdisadvantaged LSOAs.• The ability and/or unwillingness to travel to major employment centres can be a significant barrier toemployment.• Take up of Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is a good indicator of whether disadvantaged young peopleare accessing learning through school, college or a learning provider. When comparing take up of EMA acrossstatistical neighbours, Nottinghamshire’s take up is fairly average.36 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspx37 Headline Economic Assessment 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council38 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspx39 England‐wide survey of almost 80,000 employers.13

• Overall, there are one in seven young people aged 16‐18 engaged in apprenticeships in Nottinghamshire. This iscomparable with statistical neighbours, with more young men taking up apprenticeships than young women.There is also a notable gender difference in the sectors young people choose to start their apprenticeship. Thereis no evidence, however, to suggest that poorer young people are accessing apprenticeships.• The attainment gap in Level 3 qualifications by the age of 19 between those in receipt of free school meals andthose not is wider than the national average.• Young people from more deprived areas are significantly less likely to enter full‐time Higher Education (HE) thantheir counterparts in more affluent neighbourhoods.• Nottinghamshire has seen considerable growth (+36%) in the number of Universities and Colleges AdmissionsService (UCAS) acceptances of young people from the 20% most deprived areas nationally over the last eightyears. The HE participation gap has narrowed over time in the county between the least and most deprived.• In some Nottinghamshire communities, aspiration levels are very low amongst young people and their familiesand, as a consequence, too many young people under‐achieve at Key Stage 4, which impacts on theirprogression after statutory education is complete. Those young people who have had poor experiences oflearning in statutory education and/or come from communities where learning has not been a high priority, areless likely to consider learning as an option when they leave school.• 46% of 14‐18 year olds are confident about the job opportunities available in Nottinghamshire; however 41% of14‐18 year olds are not. Young people in lower socio‐economic groups are less confident than those from highersocio‐economic groups. In addition, of those not in education, employment or training (NEET), only a quarterfeel the job opportunities they want are available in Nottinghamshire 40 .• Nottinghamshire Family Learning Programme targets areas with highest levels of disadvantage and schools havebeen targeted with higher IDACI scores.• The Adult Community Learning Service has found that parents and carers without literacy/numeracyqualifications at Level 2 are at greatest risk of unemployment.• There are adults and young people in the county with literacy, language and numeracy needs that prevent themfrom getting jobs, progressing at work, helping their children learn and being active in their local communities.• The Adult Community Learning Service has identified that local parents have aspirations for their children. Theywant them to achieve more than they did and not have the negative educational experiences they had. This isnot always readily articulated due to a lack of confidence, which can come over as having a lack of aspiration or alack of interest.Childcare• The availability of free childcare is essential in engaging parents in learning activity. The cost of/availability ofchildcare may also be a barrier to employment for some parents, in particular when childcare is not alwaysavailable in the locations or at the times that match employment opportunities.• The take up of formal childcare by low income working families is on the increase and above the nationalaverage. This indicates that there is a positive increase in the numbers of poorer families benefiting from thechildcare element of the Working Tax Credit.• Some rural areas do not have sufficient demand to make group childcare provision viable, so childminderprovision is heavily relied upon. There are also age gaps, where provision for older children is not as accessible.In many communities, informal childcare is being provided by extended family and friends, which can beconsidered as income gaps.• In areas of most disadvantage, childcare costs tend to be lowest at £3.00 per hour for childminders and £95.00per week for day care in a nursery. However, in areas where there is little or no choice of childcare type, costscan be high (childminder £44.00 per day or nursery £180 per week) 41 .40 Nottinghamshire JSNA 201041 Nottinghamshire JSNA 201014

At Risk Groups• There are higher numbers of young people not in education, training or employment in Mansfield, Ashfield andBassetlaw. However, within all districts except Rushcliffe, there are certain wards where NEET levels are muchhigher than the county average.• Teenage mothers and young people with learning difficulties and disabilities are over‐represented in NEETfigures, as are looked after children/care leavers and young offenders. 16‐18 year old black & minority ethnic(BME) young people in Nottinghamshire are more likely to be in learning or work than the whole cohort, thoughsome BME groups do less well, most notably those of dual heritage.• Adult carers are more likely to suffer ill health than those without a caring responsibility, and one in five carershas had to give up work.• The 2001 Census identified that there were over 83,000 carers living in Nottinghamshire, fairly evenly spreadacross the county, and that almost a third of these were providing care for more than 20 hours per week. Nearlya quarter provided unpaid care for 50 hours or more per week 42 . Mansfield had the highest proportion of carersin the population, and the lowest proportion was in Rushcliffe.• Most carers in Nottinghamshire are of working age.• 11.9% of Nottinghamshire’s working age population are disabled or have a work‐limiting disability. Theemployment rate of disabled working age residents of the county is highest in the boroughs of Rushcliffe (41%),Broxtowe and Gedling (both 37%), and lowest in Ashfield (27%). However, the county average is two and a halfpercentage points below the national average.• Limiting long‐term illness levels are highest in Mansfield (12.12%), Ashfield (10.91%) and Bassetlaw (10.8%), andlowest in Rushcliffe (6.5%).Services and Interventions• There are a range of services and interventions available in Nottinghamshire to support employment, includingservices offered by Jobcentre Plus. Funding for a number of services and interventions is not yet secure postApril 2011.• Jobcentre Plus offers a range of services and interventions across Nottinghamshire, including a number of pilotactivities, such as close working with services working with families who have complex needs such as the FamilyIntervention Project.• Jobcentre Plus operates outreach sessions in 22 targeted children’s centres of varying frequency withinNottinghamshire. However, there are significant gaps in some child poverty hot spot wards, including Mansfieldwards.• Nottinghamshire County Council runs a successful back to work programme called ‘Making the Connection’,which works with employers to secure sustained employment for the county’s residents. The project has verystrong relationships with major employers in the county and provides a free recruitment service to theseemployers, in return for guaranteed interviews for candidates that Making the Connection puts forward.• Nottinghamshire County Council also funds a number of interventions to aid employment, including the ‘Wheelsto Work’ scheme and the Star Alliance transport scheme, which encourages private bus operators to operatenew routes connecting more rural communities to employment opportunities, particularly where there arelarger concentrations of jobs.• The Adult Community Learning service offers a range of interventions targeting at risk parents and localities ofgreatest disadvantage.• The local service mapping exercise identified that a number of services offered support to parents and carers tofind employment (28.9%), although in the main those who responded to the questionnaire tended to signpost toother services for this support.42 Nottinghamshire JSNA (Chapter 2), 200815

• Children’s centres offer a range of services by working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus and Adult CommunityLearning. This integrated approach is recommended by most practitioners to enable families to access a rangeof services under one roof, rather than being signposted to a plethora of services not always within easy reach.• A number of organisations, in particular those in the Voluntary and Community Sector, offer a range ofvolunteering opportunities which enable people to find employment.• Only 11.7% of organisations that took part in the service mapping exercise stated that they offered support forlocal enterprise and business.• 36.7% of organisations that took part in the service mapping exercise stated that they worked with children andfamilies to improve skills to find employment.4. Family and Life Chances – Key HeadlinesOutcomes Associated with Child Poverty• Poverty is a key risk factor for teenage pregnancy and parenthood. Young women from lower socio‐economicgroups have a risk of teenage pregnancy ten times higher than young women whose family have a professionalsocio‐economic status.• In terms of teenage conception rates, there are 20 wards in Nottinghamshire well above the national averageand these generally correlate to the areas of highest deprivation. Evidence shows that the inequalities inteenage conceptions in the county are starting to reduce over time.• The choice for young women to terminate a pregnancy is associated with high levels of aspiration, educationalattainment and future career plans. In Nottinghamshire, this is evidenced through a higher proportion ofterminations occurring in Gedling and Rushcliffe than elsewhere.• For the period 2005‐2007, there were just over 46 more teenage conceptions per 1,000 females aged 15‐17 inthe most deprived wards than in the least deprived wards.• The 2001 Census evidenced that 2% of the 0‐15 population in Nottinghamshire were carrying out caringresponsibilities for another person, in line with the national average.• Fuel poverty is a significant issue for families in Nottinghamshire in particular those living in rural areas.• Young people have identified in a local Supporting People survey of 90 current and ex‐service users, that theywanted more options for supported accommodation, they wanted advice to be more accessible to preventproblems escalating, and budgeting was their biggest support need.• Low income families across Nottinghamshire are more at risk of accidental and deliberate dwelling fires than theaverage.Poor Health Outcomes• Smoking prevalence is highest in the routine and manual social group and among mothers under 20 years old,of whom approximately 45% smoke throughout their pregnancy.• NHS Nottinghamshire County had maternal smoking levels in line with regional and national averages. However,figures for NHS Bassetlaw were significantly higher.• Birth weight has consistently been shown to decrease with lower social status 43 ‐ this is reflective of theNottinghamshire picture.• The infant mortality rate in Nottinghamshire, 4.9 per 1000 live births, does not differ significantly from that ofnational or regional comparators. Ashfield has the highest levels of infant mortality.• Acute illnesses are more likely to affect poor children. They are at greater risk of hospital admission and aremore likely to experience multiple admissions before the age of three 44 .43 N Spencer Health Consequences of Poverty for Children. End Child Poverty 200816

• Mansfield and Bassetlaw had significantly higher emergency hospital admission rates than England and otherdistricts in the county. High emergency admission rates are associated with deprivation, which explains much ofthe variation between districts.• Issues related to socio‐economic deprivation across the county have a considerable influence on levels of need,with more deprived areas generally having higher risk factors for poor emotional and mental health in childrenand young people.• Males living in the least deprived areas in NHS Nottinghamshire can expect to live nine years longer than thoseliving in the most deprived areas. The gap is seven years for females in Nottinghamshire. For NHS Bassetlawthe inequality gap is narrower ‐ males living in the least deprived areas can expect to live seven years longer,and females four years longer, than those born in the most deprived areas.• There is a positive relationship between obese and overweight children and deprivation in Nottinghamshire forboth sexes, especially in Year 6 45 .• Twice as many children and young people classified as from lower socio‐economic groups never do sport (30%compared to 15%) 46 .• The Nottinghamshire Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT) estimates that up to 4,266 children and youngpeople are affected by parental illicit drug use across the county and between 13,271 and 21,565 are affectedby parental problematic alcohol use.Educational Outcomes• 2009/10 GCSE results show that 19.1% of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) achieved 5+ A*‐C grades(including English & Maths) in Nottinghamshire. This compares with a 2009/10 provisional result of 55.1% fornon‐FSM pupils.• The achievement gap between pupils eligible for FSM and their peers at both Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 haswidened over the last 12 months.• Pupils eligible for FSM are more likely to miss school than those who are ineligible. FSM unauthorised absencerates were 4.4 times higher in primary schools than non‐FSM and 2.7 times higher in secondary schools.Persistent absenteeism was also considerably higher for children eligible for FSM.• Pupils eligible for FSM were also more likely to be excluded from school in Nottinghamshire compared to noneligiblepupils. In addition, pupils eligible for FSM are over four times more likely to be permanently excludedfrom school than the rest of the school population.At Risk Groups• National evidence shows that families with three or more children have a 31% chance of relative poverty 47 .However, there is no local data to confirm whether this is the case in Nottinghamshire.• Children of teenage mothers have a 63% increased risk of being born into poverty, compared to babies born tomothers in their twenties 48 .• Young fathers are twice as likely to be unemployed at age 30 than men who become fathers after they turn 23 49 .• People living in poor households and financially insecure households are more likely to suffer from domesticviolence. However, the correlation between poverty and domestic violence does not mean that domesticviolence is not found in better off households as well 50 . Domestic violence can also lead to poverty as it makes itmore difficult for women to hold down jobs and can increase ill health. Furthermore, unemployment and lack ofeconomic resources may make it harder for them to leave a violent partner.44 N J Spencer, M A Lewis and S Logan, ‘Multiple Admission and Deprivation’, Archives of Disease in Childhood 68, 1993, (pp760‐62).45 Nottinghamshire JSNA 201046 Nottinghamshire JSNA 201047 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai48 Teenage Parents: Who cares? A guide to commissioning and delivering maternity services for young parents DFES & DH 200849 DfES (2007) Teenage Parents, Next Steps: Guidance for Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts.50 Mirrlees‐Black, British Crime Survey 199917

• Children with one or more disabled adults have a 30% chance of being in relative poverty 51 .• Only 16% of mothers with disabled children work, compared to 61% of other mothers 52 .• There do not appear to be many services for the children of disabled parents in Nottinghamshire with theexception of children’s centres, which work with children up to the age of four years old. Nevertheless,children’s centres struggle to engage parents with a disability.• Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities face greater risk of children living in poverty and experience arange of poor outcomes, including poor health.• Children and young people at risk of substance use are those who are also at greater risk of living in poverty.Homeless young people, young people abused through prostitution, teenage mothers and young people not ineducation, employment or training are just some of the groups identified as being at risk of problematicsubstance use. Many of those at risk live in our most deprived communities.• Young people involved in the Youth Offending Service (YOS), and therefore those already offending, face anumber of risk factors for poverty, including homelessness, unsuitable accommodation and substance use.Parental issues, however, account for the greatest risk factor for young offenders, which can include parentalsubstance use.• 7% of children will see a parent imprisoned during their school years ‐ this equates to approximately 9,000children and young people in Nottinghamshire 53 .• Amongst adult offenders in Nottinghamshire, education, training and employment were highlighted as areas ofhigh priority and need. Emotional well‐being, alcohol/drug misuse and accommodation were also highlighted asareas of high need 54 .• 53% of all adult offenders are unemployed in Nottinghamshire 55 .• The link between stable accommodation and reduced levels of re‐offending among ex‐offenders is wellestablished ‐ as of March 2010, 96.6% of young offenders were in suitable accommodation, the same figure asthe previous year.• The needs identified by supervised offenders in Nottinghamshire include education, training and employment(59%), thinking and behaviour (59%), relationships (47%), lifestyle (45%), emotional well‐being (44%), alcoholmisuse (43%), accommodation (38%), attitudes (37%), drug misuse (31%), and financial management (26%).Needs are typically multiple with the average being four types of need for each offender on supervision 56 .Services and Interventions• Children’s centres offer a range of services for families in the most disadvantaged areas of the county. Servicesaim to reduce poverty and reduce the effects of poverty on families and children.• Community play schemes have been set up in areas of high social need. This has lead to local parents taking upopportunities for training, with a further possibility of gaining play work qualifications.• The service mapping exercise identified that the majority of respondents offered services to reduce the impactof poverty, rather than direct interventions to lift families out of poverty.• There are a wide range of services available for children and families in Nottinghamshire that focus onimproving outcomes. However, the picture will be changing in 2011/12 and beyond due to impending budgetcuts, the closure of some services and the reduced capacity of others. It is still unclear, however, how this willimpact on outcomes for children and families.51 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai52 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai53 Nottinghamshire JSNA September 201054 Nottinghamshire Probation Service 201055 Nottinghamshire Probation Service 201056 Nottinghamshire Probation Service 201018

• Organisations in Nottinghamshire struggle to measure the impact of their service activity and there is a need tosupport organisations to help them to build skills to evaluate interventions and look to develop longer termperformance systems to be able to measure impact and evidence improved outcomes.• The service mapping exercise identified that most services are able to access information and signposting datafor all key child poverty interventions. Training and support for practitioners, however, seems to be lessavailable across key themes, with the exception of ‘engaging children and young people’ and ‘parentingsupport’.• There may be scope to ensure there is improved information, support and training available for practitioners andvolunteers to address additional issues such as welfare rights, money management, employment, childcare andhousing.5. Financial Support – Key HeadlinesIncome• The gross weekly pay of full‐time workers resident in Nottinghamshire is below the East Midlands figure, butabove the UK figure.• There is variation across districts of gross weekly pay of full‐time workers, with Rushcliffe residents earning morethan residents of other districts.• Women continue to earn less than men in Nottinghamshire. This is reflected nationally.• Male earnings have increased by 29% (2002‐2009), whilst women’s earnings increased by 39.2% over the sameperiod. This hopefully reflects a narrowing of the income gap across both genders.• The greatest discrepancy between average earnings of population (by residence) and lowest earnings is greatestin Rushcliffe. The discrepancy is least in Ashfield.Welfare and Benefits• Mansfield and Ashfield have the highest proportion of people on Job Seekers Allowance and Rushcliffe has thelowest.• Mansfield has the highest proportion of people claiming Employment and Support Allowance and IncapacityBenefits across Nottinghamshire.• The largest proportion of lone parents claiming benefits is in Ashfield.• The estimated take up of income related benefits is not available at a local level. However, using national data itis clear that eligible couples with children have a lower take up of Income Support and Employment and SupportAllowance than lone parents. Eligible couples with children also have the lowest take up of housing benefit andcouncil tax benefit, whereas lone parents have the highest.• Local data shows that a relatively small proportion of people leaving Job Seeker Allowance (JSA) claim anotherbenefit. Data shows that nearly half of claimants leaving JSA take up work of more than 16 hours a week whenleaving JSA; but data does not show those who return to claim JSA and in what timescales.Debt Management and Repossessions• There is no local data on debt and this is an area that may require further focus in order to develop acomprehensive child poverty strategy.• Mortgage possession claims leading to orders made have decreased across the county since mid 2009 by anaverage of 28%. The highest are in Mansfield and Ashfield, and the lowest in Rushcliffe.• Landlord possession claims leading to orders being made have increased by 22% since mid 2009 inNottinghamshire. Mansfield has the highest rate.19

Services and Interventions• There are a range of Citizen’s Advice Bureau services in Nottinghamshire. However, future funding for theseservices is not yet confirmed or secure after March 2011.• There are seven credit unions operating in Nottinghamshire, a number of which are due to merge.• There are a range of additional services in districts, for example the southern boroughs are engaged in a BenefitUptake campaign with Nottingham City Council.• Within the service mapping exercise, of the organisations that stated they offered financial supportinterventions, support included: debt advice, budgeting skills, welfare rights advice and support to claim benefitentitlements. A smaller number of organisations offer direct grants or hardship funds which are used to helppay for rent deposits, to help insulate homes or provide activities for children.• Practitioners during the mapping exercise expressed serious concern about the loss of the County Council’sWelfare Right’s Service and budget cuts to all Citizens Advice Bureaux across Nottinghamshire.6. Data ChallengesWhilst developing the child poverty needs assessment, a number of data gaps were identified. These gaps andadditional areas requiring further analysis are listed below. It is advisable that these challenges are collated into aplan for action, in order to help refresh the needs assessment and strategy in future years.6.1 Systematic monitoring to identify if service users are parents or carers can be a real challenge for servicesworking with adults. Without this monitoring, it is hard for us to assess need across a locality and isproblematic for services which do not offer holistic support to service users, because they are unaware of theissues affecting an individual or family. Improved monitoring processes enable the secure sharing of relevantinformation between agencies, and systematic assessment and support of the child, combined with a ‘ThinkFamily’ approach, would maximise outcomes for both the child and the family.6.2 Young fathers are particularly hard to identify because services working with young people rarely ask if ayoung person is a parent or has caring responsibilities. It is also important for young people’s services to use a‘Think Family’ approach to not only support families, but to help identify young fathers in order to offerappropriate services and interventions.6.3 Research should be undertaken into the needs of children and families living in the more rural areas of thecounty. Rural poverty is often hidden because of the spatial scale in which areas are categorised as ‘deprived’.As there are low population densities in rural areas, and poorer and more affluent families live in the sameneighbourhood, the process of averaging when classifying areas as ‘deprived’ means that the poorerhouseholds can be averaged out.6.4 Unemployment data for 18‐25 year olds should be identified separately from the total working age populationas this age group are at particular risk of unemployment, compounded further if they are single parents.6.5 Assessing Incapacity Benefit and the number of dependents for each claimant in specific target localities ofNottinghamshire would lead to cross‐prioritisation between family well‐being and employment and skills.6.6 Analysis of child protection cases and poverty has yet to be undertaken locally. National evidence and localanecdotal evidence suggests that poverty is a common factor in most cases where there are safeguardingconcerns for a child. However, local analysis has yet to be undertaken to identify a local picture.6.7 Further information is required about children living in families where there are poor parenting skills orsignificant issues of concern, including those living with substance using parents and those experiencingdomestic violence.6.8 It would be useful to explore the support offered to parents who access substance use services in terms ofwhat is being done to tackle poverty for families.20

6.9 Parental ill health is an area also worth exploring more locally ‐ for many parents who do not meet thethresholds for adult social care interventions, it is unclear what services are offered to support them to gainemployment or access their benefit entitlements.6.10 The number and geographical spread of young carers in the county is unclear, so it is impossible to identifytrends or hotspots. More research would help to understand the extent of the issue across the county and thesupport needs of these children and young people.6.11 Local information on the numbers of children and young people with specific disabilities/long‐term conditionscan be difficult to access as it is collected and held by individual services and practitioners, is often out of dateand is not routinely shared.6.12 Census data is the only route to access statistics for overcrowding. District councils are unable to provide anyevidence on the number of social housing tenants who are overcrowded. This is because they do not do anannual check on who is living in a property.6.13 Nottinghamshire lacks consistent data to measure social mobility amongst families. It would be useful to agreehow socially mobile families are, in particular those living in areas of high levels of child poverty.6.14 It was not possible to carry out specific qualitative research with children and families to understand theirexperiences of poverty. In this needs assessment, existing information was used. However there are gaps inour knowledge, creating an additional challenge when shaping a local strategy. We cannot, for example,identify if parents feel that they have the skills and ability to cope with living in poverty and the capability toseek out support if required.6.15 It is also unclear what the experiences of children and young people across a range of outcomes for thosegrowing up in poverty are. Qualitative research should be carried out to identify their educationalexperiences, their health needs etc. It is important to identify the experiences of children in poverty duringtheir childhood as well as identifying the impact of poverty on later life. It would be important to know whatliving in poverty means to local children on a day to day basis.6.16 It would be worthwhile to examine the local services and infrastructure in the wards with the highest levels ofchild poverty, some districts have been able to secure information to help build a picture of the servicesavailable and potential barriers for children and families. However, this has not been consistently done acrossall wards. It would be recommended to start to examine the wards where child poverty levels are over 20%initially.6.17 Many services do not consistently assess or monitor how service users found out about their organisation. Wewould encourage organisations to signpost to appropriate interventions that will help to reduce levels ofpoverty and mitigate against its effects. However, there is very little evidence of how effective signposting is.6.18 The estimated take up of income related benefits is not available at a local level, national data is used in thisneeds assessment. However, it would be useful to understand which groups do not access their benefitentitlement and the reasons for this, so that interventions can be shaped to increase benefit uptake forfamilies in poverty.6.19 Further research would be advisable as to who is not accessing tax credits and why. This may includeparticular groups at risk of poverty.6.20 There is no available data at a county level on the actual numbers of families in debt. It may be worthexploring how this data would be identified and how it would be used to support families to prevent childpoverty.6.21 The real extent of numbers of homeless families is not known and the official figures included in this needsassessment represent only a proportion. Further work should be carried out to identify homeless youngpeople and families who are not accessing services and therefore not recorded as being homeless.6.22 There is a lack of data locally on how BME children and families are affected by child poverty ‐ data availabledid not highlight or identify particular issues for these groups.6.23 Local data on how many households with children under the age of 20 as living in fuel poverty is not available.Further work is needed to identify data but also to identify which families are eligible for affordable warmthschemes.21

6.24 It is a challenge to identify if families experiencing greatest levels of poverty are accessing services. Serviceuptake data varies across organisations as we have seen. For example, it is a challenge to identify if youngpeople from households in poverty are accessing apprenticeships. Services need to consider how they identifyif those in poverty access their provision, such as identifying postcode data to see if they live in areas ofgreatest poverty. Identifying which district service users live in is not enough to confirm if families in need areengaging with services.6.25 It would be useful to gain a better understanding of debt issues for families in Nottinghamshire. Data is notroutinely collected across the county. However, local Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) services will have somevaluable data to help inform a response to prevent debt levels rising and make debt more manageable.6.26 The estimated take up of income related benefits is not available at a local level. It is a challenge, therefore, toidentify which groups do not take up income related benefits that they may be entitled to, e.g. Working TaxCredits.6.27 There are also gaps in local data which would identify which groups do not access other benefit entitlements.6.28 Local data focusing on who is in debt, who faces financial exclusion, and which groups are unlikely to take uptheir benefit entitlements is not available, so it is impossible to identify which groups are most at risk. For thepurposes of the local strategy, we can assume that groups most at risk of child poverty will be the samegroups at risk of poor financial management and support.6.29 There is no local data on how many families are suffering financial exclusion. Further work with organisationssuch as CAB is needed to gain a better understanding of who is at risk and what types of financial exclusionthey face.6.30 It would be helpful to gain an understanding of the numbers of children in Nottinghamshire who have aparent/carer in prison. There is currently no local data.7. ConclusionsNottinghamshire has average levels of child poverty, with variable levels across districts, wards and Lower SuperOutput Areas (LSOA). The level of child poverty in some wards is around 40% and in some LSOA wards it is over 50%(2008 data); these areas correlate with unemployment data, where there are pockets of high and persistentunemployment rates. However, every district has wards where over 10% of children live in poverty.We have also identified that there are groups at particular risk of poverty, unemployment and low skills. Thesegroups tend to reside in the areas of greatest poverty. However, in some cases they will be located in relativelyaffluent areas, often masking their needs, for example women and families fleeing domestic violence.We have found that rural poverty is of particular concern, communities are often hidden, lack good transportnetworks, have increased costs in terms of fuel poverty and are less able to access a range of services. In‐workpoverty is also an area of significant concern and further research is needed to gain a greater understanding of theissues facing families in work and yet below 60% of median income.There are a range of interventions taking place across Nottinghamshire to help tackle unemployment, supportwelfare rights and schemes to improve skills, education and life chances. Continued funding for many interventionswill cease for some services and is currently unclear for many. This is due to budget reductions by all local authoritiesand other commissioning bodies, so the picture of current provision is likely to change dramatically, as can be seenby budget cuts facing services such as CAB or the County Council’s Welfare Rights Service.Nottinghamshire needs to agree an approach to tackle child poverty by improving the skills and capacity of universaland targeted services that will remain. They will also need to integrate service provision to enable easier access andholistic support packages for those who need them most. Think Family approaches should be used to enable adultservices to identify and support parents and equip children’s services to also engage parents and carers. Tacklingchild poverty is not just about working with children. The needs assessment has identified that supporting families iscritical to improving life chances and outcomes of children.22

Tackling poverty is not just about income maximisation ‐ for many children and families poverty is also about thedisadvantage of opportunity, low aspirations and resilience. More needs to be done to increase the opportunities forchildren and families, break the cycle of disadvantage, improve their aspirations and equip them to seek supportwhen they need it and take steps to resolve issues themselves wherever possible.In order to tackle child poverty effectively, Nottinghamshire needs to deliver a targeted approach to the localitiesexperiencing highest levels of child poverty, as well as the particular at risk groups who reside in a variety oflocations across Nottinghamshire. Organisations should be encouraged to identify and engage those most at risk byreaching out to engage those hardest to reach and in most need. Evidence based practice should be encouraged toenable an efficient use of limited resources with target groups and localities most at risk.Nottinghamshire County Council has led work to tackle child poverty with a range of partners. This needsassessment has identified a range of public sector and voluntary and community sector organisations who arealready contributing to the work. More needs to be done to engage the private sector and Local EnterprisePartnerships to ensure that the approach to tackle child poverty also brings together plans for economicregeneration. A continued partnership approach will be central to the development and delivery of an effectivestrategy.“... A fundamental change of approach is needed to support families to turn around their long‐term economicprospects, to ensure their children succeed in education, and to tackle the range of other factors that blight theirchances in life. We know that family background, parental education, good parenting and opportunities for learningand development in the early years of a child's life, as well as access to high quality public services, are critical factorsin determining whether they are able to realise their potential later in life. It is by addressing the issues of educationalfailure, welfare dependency, worklessness, and family breakdown that we can provide the conditions that will allowfamilies to move out of poverty” 57 .8. RecommendationsA large number of recommendations have been identified from this needs assessment. These have beensummarised into the top 10 below.Additional specific recommendations are included later in this section and those which will have greatest impact ontackling child poverty will be prioritised. These recommendations will be examined alongside evidence basedpractice to identify areas for further development.Nottinghamshire’s top 10 recommendations to tackle child poverty:1. Embed child poverty into core delivery of services and partnership activity. For example, working to improvehealth outcomes for families and children in poverty should be a priority for the new Health and Well‐BeingBoard.2. Services should work with families using a Think Family approach, dealing with families in a holistic way toassess needs and ensure children and their parents/carers receive appropriate services and interventions to liftthemselves out of poverty.3. Services and interventions should use a targeted approach to work with children, families and communities ingreatest need. There are steps that can be taken to carry out further outreach to engage the most disaffectedchildren and families.4. Use early intervention approaches to break the cycle of disadvantage; early years settings have a substantialrole to play in improving outcomes for children and families.57 DWP, DE, HM Treasury (2010) Tackling Child Poverty and Improving Life Chances: Consulting on a New Approach23

5. Integrate service provision to enable easier access and enable holistic support packages for those who needthem most.6. Ensure the needs of parents and young people are considered and actioned when delivering interventions toincrease skills and employment.7. Engage the private sector and Local Enterprise Partnership in plans to tackle child poverty.8. Commissioners and managers should ensure they utilise evidence‐based practice when developing interventionswhich impact on child poverty; and performance management and evaluation systems must be strengthened.9. Improve the skills of universal and targeted services. It is advisable that child poverty is fully considered byworkforce development leads across agencies to ensure training, support and information needs are furtheridentified and addressed.10. Further assess need by addressing the data challenges highlighted in the Child Poverty Needs Assessment. Thiswill help shape local interventions to ensure the needs of those most at risk are identified and met.Further Areas to ProgressWorking with Families and Children:• Young people who are facing homelessness need to be consistently offered mediation support; this could bebroadened out to include women and children fleeing domestic violence where appropriate.• Homeless young people and those in supported accommodation should be offered support to help them liveindependently, including budgeting, money management and support to find employment.• Children and young people should be taught how to manage money, for example budgeting lessons in schoolsand other settings, to give them the skills to be financially secure in the future.• Work to reduce inequalities between groups and localities should be developed further and recognised as a keyapproach to tackling poverty.• Parenting support should be targeted at families most at risk, and interventions should be offered early toprevent problems deteriorating.• Families seem to be signposted to a range of services. Further work is needed to ensure that people feel able toaccess these services and ensure that there are more holistic services, e.g. more services under one roof, and/orincreasing the skills levels of practitioners to move towards holistic information, support and guidance.• Holistic support should be available for all at risk groups such as teenage parents, disabled parents, drugmisusing parents, Gypsy, Roma & Traveller groups, BME groups, homeless families etc.• Further work is needed to build aspirations of young people, as well as the aspirations parents have for theirchildren.• Low cost childcare should be available in accessible locations to enable poorer families to access employmentand, in line with Frank Field’s review, help to improve life chances of disadvantaged children through the earlyyears.Commissioning and Planning:• Commissioners, planners and workforce development leads ought to support organisations to build on theirskills to measure the impact of their interventions.• Alternative arrangements should be in place to compensate for the planned budget cuts that impact directly onservices which are dedicated to tackling poverty amongst children and families. This, for example, could includea changed focus for some services to prioritise groups most at risk. CAB or Supporting People, for example, willbe facing substantial cuts, so it is advisable that their commissioners refocus service delivery to work withchildren and families most in need.24

• Commissioners and planners should be encouraged to take an active approach in addressing gaps in serviceprovision and ensuring existing services are able to tackle child poverty by helping to lift families out of poverty,as well as mitigating against the effects of poverty.• Nottinghamshire County Council and its partners should monitor the impact of the worsening economic climateon child poverty levels, ensuring that they have up to date data to enable continued targeting for those most inneed, and making sure organisations that they commission work with these groups.• We need to ensure we are fully aware of the risks associated with budget cuts on services that directly work tolift families out of poverty and monitor the impact of service closures and reductions on families in poverty.• Further work is needed to ensure services continue to work with each other through integrated approaches.This includes services working with adults who may be parents liaising with children and young people services.• There could be greater use of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) to address issues of child poverty,including the needs of parents and carers with scope to develop a family CAF.• A continued focus on working to improve health outcomes for families and children in poverty should be apriority for the new Health and Well‐Being Board.Workforce Development:• It is advisable that child poverty is fully considered by workforce development leads across agencies to ensuretraining and support needs are further identified and addressed. This should include skills to find employmentand the offer of financial support, welfare rights and financial management skills to families and children inneed.• It would be advisable to ensure information is available through an existing central website of the FamilyInformation Service, where practitioners can download fact sheets, prompt discussion sheets for work withservice users, signposting information and web links.Economic Regeneration:• Engagement with both Local Enterprise Partnerships covering Nottinghamshire and Bassetlaw should beencouraged to ensure that job opportunities are created which enable parents and carers to access employmentthat pays.• Further work is needed to engage the private sector to identify how they work to tackle child poverty e.g.through creating jobs, debt management and economic regeneration.• As the Big Society approach becomes more established, child poverty is an area that could easily be linked tohelp empower communities to work together to highlight service gaps, local barriers to employment and agreelocal approaches to tackle child poverty. Volunteering, for example, could be encouraged, as it will improveskills, confidence and job prospects.Increasing Employment and Skills:• Work to increase appropriate skills and qualifications should continue, as it will enable people into employment,in particular amongst groups and localities most at risk.• There is a need to maintain family learning provision for families, in particular those experiencing the greatestlevels of poverty.• Parents experiencing long term limiting illness and young carers should be supported to help reduce the effectsof poverty, and steps should be taken to enable employment where appropriate. This is a particular issue ofconcern in some districts e.g. Mansfield.• Further work should be considered with single parents to enable them to have the skills and support (includingtransport and childcare) to access employment and prevent over‐reliance on welfare benefits.• Unemployed parents and young people should be actively identified and targeted in areas of greatest poverty toenable them to access employment, especially in areas of Mansfield, Bassetlaw and Ashfield, whereunemployment rates are highest.25

• Further engagement of the private sector is needed to enable the creation of jobs which will attract youngpeople and parents/carers most at risk of unemployment and low pay.• Young people’s services should target young people most at risk of being in NEET groups across Nottinghamshiree.g. teenage parents and disabled young people.• The discontinuation of the Education Maintenance Allowance requires future examination of data to identify ifyoung people from areas of greatest child poverty are still accessing Further Education and Sixth Form provision.Changes to the student grant system will also require further examination to ensure that young people frompoorer households are able to access Higher Education.Further Assessing Need:• It would be advisable to carry out in depth service mapping exercises within the wards across Nottinghamshirewith over 20% of children living in poverty, to identify what interventions are in place, their impact and whatchildren and families living in those areas need.• Explore the needs of children whose parents rely on incapacity benefits and identify further which services areable to work with those children. Currently, service gaps have been identified for children outside the children’scentre target age groups and those engaged in Family Action’s Young Carers Service.• It would be worthwhile to understand the real extent of homelessness in Nottinghamshire, focusing on homelessfamilies and young people by district. Any planned qualitative research exercises may be able to further identifyinformation that could help planners and commissioners put plans in place to prevent homelessness.• An action plan should be developed to help address data challenges identified in this needs assessment, withregular review of the action plan and child poverty needs assessment.• Further data is required to help identify which groups to target in terms of debt, rent arrears, financial exclusionand benefit entitlements.• Further work is required to identify if children and families accessing services and interventions are target groupsfor the child poverty strategy, for example being able to identify which groups of young people accessapprenticeships.• Changes to the welfare system (e.g. Incapacity Benefit) will require local examination to ensure children andfamilies in need are not negatively affected.26

1. Appendix One: Place and DeliveryNottinghamshire is a large county covering 805 square miles (2,085 sq km). There are three very distinct areas:• the relatively affluent suburbs surrounding the City of Nottingham• the towns and villages in the north west which grew out of the textile and coal industries• rural areas to the east and south, characterised by prosperous market towns and villages in the Trent Valley 58 .Nottinghamshire is made up of a complex mosaic of relationships between people and places, many of whichoverlap with other counties and cities. Outside Greater Nottingham, the main towns are Mansfield, Sutton‐in‐Ashfield and Kirkby‐in‐Ashfield, Newark‐on‐Trent, Worksop and Retford. About a third of the county’s populationlives in rural areas, where ensuring that services are accessible can be challenging 59 . The county has good transportlinks including the A1 and M1 motorways and the East Coast and Midland Mainline rail lines, as well as the proximityof East Midlands Airport and Robin Hood Airport.In mid 2008, the population was 776,500, with each district/borough area being home to between 100,600 and116,500 people. Population figures show a high number of older people in Newark & Sherwood and Gedling, a highnumber of young adults in Broxtowe, and higher numbers of young children in Ashfield and Mansfield. Althoughbirth rates have risen recently, the longer‐term projected decline in the number of children and young people andthe rising numbers of older people, raise significant issues for the type of services needed in the future 60 .Less than 3% of the county’s population is from ethnic minority groups, although there is a larger percentage in theareas close to Nottingham. The largest group is Indian. There has also been a substantial increase in the number ofmigrant workers since 2004, although the number of entrants has decreased more recently 61 .The Indices of Deprivation (2007) provides a relative ranking of areas across England according to their level ofdeprivation. The geography used is the Lower Super Output Area (LSOA), which in most cases is smaller than wards,usually having between 1,000 and 3,000 people living in them, with an average population of 1,500.There are 32,482 LSOA's in England with 497 in Nottinghamshire. In 2007, there were 23 Nottinghamshire LSOA's inthe most deprived 10% of English LSOA's and 101 in the most deprived 25% of English LSOA's ‐ these are the areasshaded red and orange on Figure 1.0a overleaf.In general, the most deprived areas are to the west of the county and are concentrated in the ex‐mining areas ofMansfield, Ashfield and Worksop. There are also smaller pockets of deprivation in Retford, central Newark andOllerton. The most deprived areas in the county are in the Ravensdale and Oak Tree areas of Mansfield, followed bythe Manton area in Worksop.This next section will focus on child poverty data for Nottinghamshire, districts and smaller localities. It will bringtogether data on housing, transport and communities.58 Nottinghamshire Sustainable Communities Strategy 2010‐2020 http://www.nottinghamshirepartnership.org.uk/index/sustainablecommunity‐strategy/59 Nottinghamshire Sustainable Communities Strategy 2010‐2020 http://www.nottinghamshirepartnership.org.uk/index/sustainablecommunity‐strategy/60 Nottinghamshire Sustainable Communities Strategy 2010‐2020 http://www.nottinghamshirepartnership.org.uk/index/sustainablecommunity‐strategy/61 Nottinghamshire Sustainable Communities Strategy 2010‐2020 http://www.nottinghamshirepartnership.org.uk/index/sustainablecommunity‐strategy/27

Figure 1.0a Indices of Deprivation (2007)Source: Nottinghamshire County Council, 201028

1.1 How many families live in relative poverty in Nottinghamshire?In 2008, there were 16.8% of children living in poverty, which equates to 27,080 children. 17.4% of under 16’s areconsidered to be in poverty 62 . Since 2007, there has only been a 0.1% reduction in the number of children living inpoverty, so progress should be intensified if Nottinghamshire’s vision of less than 10% of children living in poverty by2020 is to be achieved. (N.B. When using child poverty (NI 116) data, children are defined as being under 20 years ofage.)When comparing 2008 child poverty data with statistical neighbours, it is clear that areas are having varying successwith tackling child poverty. Most local authority areas have seen a small reduction in levels of child poverty between2007 and 2008, although child poverty has yet to reduce to 2006 levels in most cases. Cumbria has seen the greatestreduction in the proportion of children living in poverty since 2006.Figure 1.1a Percentage children living in poverty (NI 116) ‐ comparisons with statistical neighbours 2006‐2008 631.2 What is the link between poverty and place locally?In districts, there is wide variation in the percentage of children living in poverty. In 2008 (most recent data),districts were ranked as follows: Mansfield (22.7%), Ashfield (21.7%), Bassetlaw (18.3%), Newark and Sherwood(16.8%), Gedling (15.0%), Broxtowe (14.2%) and Rushcliffe (7.9%).Figure 1.2a Children living in poverty in Nottinghamshire 2008 (NI 116) 64% of All Children living in povertyRushcliffe7.9%Newark and Sherwood16.8%Mansfield22.7%Gedling15.0%Broxtowe14.2%Bassetlaw18.3%Ashfield21.7%Nottinghamshire16.8%East Midlands18.4%England20.9%0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%62 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm63 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm64 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm29

The Nottinghamshire map in Figure 1.2b shows that all districts have wards where over 10% of children live inpoverty. There are larger concentrations of children living in poverty in Mansfield, Bassetlaw, Ashfield and areas ofNewark and Sherwood.Figure 1.2b Percentage of children living in poverty in Nottinghamshire by ward 2008 6565 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm30

Figure 1.2c Percentage of all children living in poverty 2006 – 2008 (NI 116) 66Figure 1.2d Percentage of under 16’s living in poverty 2006 – 2008 67As mentioned above, deprivation levels in the county are extremely varied. Rushcliffe Borough, for example, is oneof the 10% least deprived areas in the country, whereas Mansfield District is amongst the 10% most deprived (Table1). The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) is a sub‐set of the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)2007, which combines statistics on the numbers of children in households receiving a range of benefits, includingIncome Support, Working Families Tax Credit, Disabled Person’s Tax Credit and Job Seekers Allowance. Figure 1.2fshows a north‐west concentration of child poverty, with clusters in Retford, Newark, Arnold and Carlton, Hucknalland several scattered wards in Broxtowe.The Child Well‐Being Index (CWI) is an alternative measurement which can be used to assess the sociological contextof the county. It is based on the methodology used in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2007, but is an indexof child well‐being rather than an index of deprivation, mainly because it contains variables that are not strictlyrelated to deprivation. The seven domains included in the CWI are material well‐being; health; education; crime;housing; environment; children in need. Figure 1.2g shows a similar picture to Figure 1.2f, with the south and east ofthe county generally displaying a more positive child well‐being score to that of the north. However, pockets inBroxtowe and larger areas of Newark & Sherwood and Bassetlaw are worthy of note, as these are not areas whereincome deprivation is identified as affecting children but nevertheless display lower levels of child well‐being.66 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm67 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm31

Table 1.2e Deprivation and child well‐being levels in NottinghamshireIndices of Multiple Deprivation (2007)Score(Low = lessdeprived)Rank out of 354nationally(High = lessdeprived)Income Deprivation AffectingChildren Index (2007)% children living in incomedeprived familiesChild Well‐BeingIndex (2009)Score(Low = higher levelof well‐being)Ashfield 25.26 81 22.4% 165.5Bassetlaw 24.11 94 19.2% 162.3Broxtowe 14.41 226 14.1% 105.9Gedling 15.54 208 15.7% 115.8Mansfield 31.8 34 26.4% 225.2Newark &18.03 163 18.3% 142.9SherwoodRushcliffe 8.13 331 8.2% 62.4Nottinghamshire 19.61 n/a 18% 140averageEngland average 18.99 n/a 21% 138.432

Figure 1.2f Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) 200733

Figure 1.2g Child Well Being Index 200934

1.3 How many children are entitled to Free School Meals (FSM)?Pupils are entitled to FSM if their parents receive:• income support• income‐based jobseeker’s allowance• support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999• child tax credit, but are not entitled to working tax credit and have an annual income that does not exceed a setfigure.Children are eligible for FSM if they live in a household where the total income is less than £16,000 per year. InNottinghamshire (as of January 2010), 14,463 school pupils were eligible for FSM, 12.55% of the whole schoolpopulation. Numbers eligible for FSM were highest in Ashfield (16.53%) and Mansfield (16.21%) and lowest inRushcliffe (5.87%) (Table 1.3a). Eligibility in secondary schools (11.47%) is slightly lower than primary schools(13.24%) (Table 1.3b), and is highest in special schools (29.25%) 68 .Table 1.3a Free school meal eligibility in Nottinghamshire by districtDistrict FSM Eligible Not Eligible % EligibleAshfield 3,033 15,318 16.53Bassetlaw 2,151 14,354 13.03Broxtowe 1,622 12,886 11.18Gedling 1,891 14,722 11.38Mansfield 2,768 14,309 16.21Newark 2,018 13,481 13.02Rushcliffe 980 15,722 5.87Source: School Census, (January) 2010Table 1.3b Free school meal eligibility in Nottinghamshire by phase (January 2010)Number onPhase Roll FSM Eligible Not Eligible % EligibleNursery 139 6 133 4.32Primary 62474 8,270 54,204 13.24Secondary 51818 5,946 45,872 11.47Special 824 241 583 29.25Source: School Census, (January) 2010Table 1.3c shows trends in FSM eligibility over the last five years. Indications are that an increasing proportion ofpupils are becoming eligible for FSM in the primary phase (+1.74 percentage points) and, to a lesser extent, in thesecondary phase (+0.13 percentage points). This is in line with the national picture, which suggests that numbers areincreasing, linked to child poverty.Table 1.3c Free school meal eligibility (2006‐2010) in NottinghamshireOverall PhaseYear Nursery Primary Secondary Special2006 30.87% 11.50% 11.34% 30.72%2007 22.54% 11.86% 11.37% 31.83%2008 6.62% 11.28% 10.53% 29.88%2009 0.00% 12.11% 11.15% 28.54%2010 4.32% 13.24% 11.47% 29.25%Source: School Census (January of each respective year)68 Nottinghamshire JSNA September 201035

1.4 Where is there an inequality gap in relation to child poverty? Are there inequalities within Nottinghamshire?Overall child poverty data masks pockets of deprivation and poverty in each district. As mentioned above, childpoverty is concentrated in the north‐west of the county, with additional clusters in Retford, Newark, Arnold andCarlton, Hucknall and several scattered wards in Broxtowe 69 . The maps below show a detailed picture of eachborough/district.Figure 1.4a Percentage of children living in poverty in Ashfield by ward 2008 7069 Nottinghamshire JSNA September 201070 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm36

Figure 1.4b Percentage of children living in poverty in Ashfield by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) 2008 7171 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm. LSOA codes are included above as a reference forlocal planners and practitioners.37

Figure 1.4c Percentage of children living in poverty in Bassetlaw by ward 2008 7272 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm38

Figure 1.4d Percentage of children living in poverty in Bassetlaw by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) 2008 7373 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm. LSOA codes are included above as a reference forlocal planners and practitioners.39

Figure 1.4e Percentage of children living in poverty in Broxtowe by ward 2008 7474 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm40

Figure 1.4f Percentage of children living in poverty in Broxtowe by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) 2008 7575 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm. LSOA codes are included above as a reference forlocal planners and practitioners.41

Figure 1.4g Percentage of children living in poverty in Gedling by ward 2008 7676 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm42

Figure 1.4h Percentage of children living in poverty in Gedling by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) 2008 7777 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm. LSOA codes are included above as a reference forlocal planners and practitioners.43

Figure 1.4i Percentage of children living in poverty in Mansfield by ward 2008 7878 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm44

Figure 1.4j Percentage of children living in poverty in Mansfield by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) 2008 7979 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm. LSOA codes are included above as a reference forlocal planners and practitioners.45

Figure 1.4k Percentage of children living in poverty in Newark and Sherwood by ward 2008 8080 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm46

Figure 1.4l Percentage of children living in poverty in Newark & Sherwood by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)2008 8181 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm. LSOA codes are included above as a reference forlocal planners and practitioners.47

Figure 1.4m Percentage of children living in poverty in Rushcliffe by ward 2008 8282 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm48

Figure 1.4n Percentage of children living in poverty in Rushcliffe by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) 2008 831.5 What do child poverty hot spot areas look like?Analysis of local target wards is taking place across districts in Nottinghamshire. In some districts, where most wardshave child poverty levels over 10%, it is far more challenging for detailed analysis. Examples of some of theinformation provided by districts are included below.Ashfield District covers an area of 10,956 hectares and is located on the western side of Nottinghamshire, borderingDerbyshire to the north and west and is contained within the East Midlands Region. Ashfield has a history ofindustrialised wealth as a result of coal mining and textile industries. Both declined in the 1980’s creating highunemployment and widespread deprivation throughout the district. Since this time the district has benefited fromnew employment opportunities and improvements to transport links including re‐established railway links toNottingham and the recently developed tram system in Hucknall. Regeneration projects in recent years havetransformed Ashfield and the district is fast becoming a more desirable place to work and live and has a wide range83 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm. LSOA codes are included above as a reference forlocal planners and practitioners.49

of visitor attractions. People moving in and out of the district will have a demographic impact, particularly where thisaffects the structure of the working population.The district is made up of 15 electoral wards with 14 of these being classified as having children living in poverty. Theonly ward that does not is Underwood.Following publication of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2007, Ashfield District Council produced wardsummaries, combining the results of the Super Output Areas that make up each ward, to present a more useableview for the Authority’s Elected Members and Officers. The ward summaries for the 14 Ashfield wards classified ashaving children living in poverty are available to download from:www.ashfield‐dc.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/business/business‐support/key‐facts‐andstatistics/;jsessionid=210AEE23F2A31888D92339DBAD55B1AFOther information on employment opportunities, the demand side of the equation, is available for the wholedistrict, and as 14 of the 15 wards are on the list, this information is fairly representative of the target wards. This isespecially the case as the one exception, Underwood, has very little employment land and hence does notsignificantly impact on the number of employment opportunities within the district.Housing stock across the district is varied with a mixture of owner occupied, private rented and social housing. Socialhousing tends to be estates. Current Ashfield District Council stock totals 7020 units, the majority of which meet theDecent Homes Standard.House prices are amongst the lowest in the county, but the ratio of house prices to earnings means that affordabilityis still an issue for many people in the district. Plans have been agreed to use Section 106 contributions (moneyreceived as part of a planning agreement) to bring empty homes back into use.Clean streets are important to local people in Ashfield and performance figures demonstrate that they are gettingcleaner. Prosecutions are now being taken forward in regards to litter, graffiti, fly‐tipping and vandalism and this isstarting to have an impact with over 200 fixed penalty notices being issued in 2009/10.As a legacy of the district’s industrial heritage and a continuing low level of skills relative to both the East Midlandsand national figures, although employment had, up until the recession, been relatively high, the average pay for jobswithin the district was still significantly below the national average. In addition, and because of its sectoral mix, thedistrict had suffered more than most from the recession, but employment for March 2010, at 71.4%, is only justbelow the East Midlands figure and actually exceeds the national figure. However, as the district has a highpercentage of employment within the public sector, this recovery in employment could be short‐lived unless theprivate sector does as the Government hopes and fills the gap and, more importantly, does so in this area.Ashfield is accessible from the M1 via junctions 26, 27, and 28 and is dissected by the A611, A608, A38, A614 andA60 trunk roads. The district connects to the Robin Hood Rail Line via stations at Hucknall, Kirkby‐in‐Ashfield andSutton.Hucknall is connected to Greater Nottingham via the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) network which providesexcellent access to and from the town and the potential for 'reverse commuting' from Nottingham.The rural areas of Selston, Jacksdale and Underwood have a limited bus service and poor access to jobs and services.Ashfield’s activity to stimulate employmentAshfield District Council offers inward investment which aims to promote the district to potential investors, offeringa single point of contact for assistance with planning, recruitment, potential financial support, supply chain etc. Thecouncil works with commercial property developers to provide appropriate land and premises, the land around theMansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route (MARR) in particular providing significant potential employmentopportunities. The Local Authority and partner organisations also use additional clauses to enable theirprocurement and planning agreements to stimulate local employment.50

Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) funded LEO Programme is a government funded programme that hasprovided a full range of interventions aimed at increasing enterprise in the three districts of Ashfield, Mansfield andBolsover. These include:• Neighbourhood Incubation Units – a project to allow gaps in the property ladder to be filled has given rise toactive incubation centres in Kirkby‐in‐Ashfield and Sutton‐in‐Ashfield and another to be completed in Hucknall.These centres provide/will provide ‘easy‐in‐easy‐out’ premises for fledgling businesses with support beingavailable from other parts of the LEGI programme and the regional Business Link service.• Enterprise Academy – activity with schools to increase the enterprise skills of pupils and, with sustainability inmind, to build capacity among the teachers to deliver these skills for the future.• Enterprise Coaching – intensive support for individuals who are thinking about possibly starting a business.• Outreach Business Support – provision of free advice and guidance to businesses from three individuals withextensive business experience.Ashfield District Council also offers a Small Business Grant Scheme which aims to provide businesses, which are lessthan three years‐old, with 50% of the cost of capital assets. The scheme will contribute up to £3,000 towards eligiblepurchases. The District Council also runs an Entrepreneurs Forum, which holds four networking opportunities peryear for pre‐start and newly started businesses to share their experiences and to benefit from speakers coveringtopics of their choosing.Aim Higher is also offered in the district; it is an undergraduate placement scheme that allows local employers tobenefit from the up to date skills of a local young people, usually for an eight week period during the summervacation. The placements always have a tangible project that needs to be done by the student and detailedattention is paid to matching students with appropriate employers. A full‐time permanent position was recentlygained by a youngster with a local business, upon his graduation following a successful placement.Ambitious in Ashfield is an annual event bringing together a large range of potential employers/further education(FE) training providers with over 1,000 pupils from the seven local secondary schools.The Creative Greenhouse is a programme which is focused on the needs of creative sector businesses; a network hasbeen created to provide a coordinated series of events and activities. The network covers Nottinghamshire andDerbyshire and currently has over 500 member businesses.In addition, a Regional Growth Fund bid is being prepared – this stems from the recently announced opportunity tobid for funding to stimulate employment opportunities in the areas most affected by the recession and will beanswered with a bid for a package of projects, probably including some of those described above. Due to thesimilarity of the issues faced by the three districts and the excellent working relationship between the localauthorities on the LEGI programme, the bid is likely to cover Ashfield, Mansfield and Bolsover.In Bassetlaw, 19 of the 25 wards have over 10% of children living in poverty based on 2008 figures. Bassetlawpartners have provided detailed analysis of what is taking place in each of these 19 wards, but for this needsassessment we have included information on the six wards where over 20% of children are living in poverty.CARLTON (26.9%) is a larger ward of population (5,885); it has higher than average crime levels, with a particularissue being criminal damage. Educational attainment is poor at each Key Stage. Health issues include high numbersof children and adults in need, and high numbers of teenage pregnancies and low birth weight babies; economicissues include higher than average youth and adult unemployment. Carlton has an hourly bus service to Worksopand Robin Hood Airport.EAST RETFORD EAST (22.4%) Has a large population – 7,030 – almost a third of Retford’s total and the largest areaof all of our town’s four wards. There are some community safety issues with higher than average anti‐socialbehaviour, theft, violence and drugs; education is mixed with some poor results at Key Stage 3 but better thanaverage GCSE results. Health issues are slightly worse than the district average, with children in need numbers being51

particularly high. In addition, several employment indicators are very poor; these include youth and adultunemployment, and benefit claimants are also high. As might be expected in a more urban area, access is not aproblem either here or in other Retford wards.HARWORTH/BIRCOTES (27.4%) is small in area but large in population, with 7,610 residents, making it denselypopulated. It is one of the most deprived wards in the district. It has uniformly high crime rates, both in total andfor each crime category, with particularly high rates of criminal damage, burglary, car crime and car‐related antisocialbehaviour (ASB). There is also poor educational performance and poor health indicators, particularly inteenage pregnancies and children in need. There are also poor economic indicators, with high unemployment, longtermunemployment, high numbers of benefit claimants and a low business/population rate. There are, however, noaccess problems. Harworth has hourly bus services to Retford, Worksop, Doncaster and Robin Hood Airport.HODSOCK/LANGOLD (24.6%) is a smaller ward, with a population of 2,560 but still with high levels of need. Mostcommunity safety indicators are high, with vehicle theft and ASB being a particular issue, although robbery is low.Educational attainment is poor at each Key Stage and at GCSE; health issues are more mixed with teenagepregnancies being low and mortality and life expectancy being medium, but low birth weight babies and children inneed indicators are high. Economic issues are also variable, with unemployment and benefit claimants being highbut with long‐term unemployment and youth unemployment being moderate. There are no access problems.The village has two hourly bus services to Worksop and Robin Hood Airport.WORKSOP EAST (20.9%) is a large ward to the northeast of Worksop town centre, with one of the smallestpopulations of the six Worksop wards (6,485 out of the total 41,000). Crime rates are above the district average andare adversely affected by higher rates of criminal damage, ASB and vehicle theft, with burglaries being lower. Mosteducation indicators are poor and at GCSE level the ward has the third worst score in the district. Health indicatorsare mixed with life expectancy at an average of 79.4 years and low numbers of low birth weight babies, but childwelfare indicators, adults in need and teenage pregnancies are all high. Economic indicators are average butnumbers of benefit claimants are high and there are a very low number of businesses relative to the localpopulation. Here, as in all the Worksop wards, there are few problems with access to services.WORKSOP SOUTH EAST (38.8%) is also a larger ward with a larger population of 7,655. Crime indicators areuniformly high and total crime is the highest in the district, as are criminal damage, thefts of vehicle, total ASB andsome categories within ASB; drugs, theft and common assault are also very high. Health indicators are also verypoor with the lowest life expectancy in the district, high numbers of low birth weight babies, children in need ratesand the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the district. Education scores are generally better than average,particularly at early Key Stages, but economic indicators are poor, with unemployment and benefit claimants beinghigh.In Gedling at 1 April 2010 there were 1,959 properties registered as vacant, of which 765 had been empty for sixmonths or more, and 586 were identified as being in need of intervention (excluding social voids, probate etc 84 .)The district of Mansfield is a largely urban area situated in the north west of Nottinghamshire populated by 100,600residents and 47,045 domestic households. Adjacent to the urban area of Sutton‐in‐Ashfield, Mansfield is the onlymajor sub‐regional centre in Nottinghamshire and covers an area of 78 square kilometres. The Centre for Cities(2009) recognises Mansfield as one of Britain’s cities by categorising the town as a ‘small city’.Deprivation in Mansfield is high but has shown an encouraging trend of improvement over recent years. Accordingto the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD, 2007), the district is ranked as the 34 th most deprived out of 355 localauthority areas in England, making it one of the top 10% most deprived areas in the country. In recent years,Mansfield District Council has improved its ranking in the IMD’s most deprived areas from 29th to 34th. However, itis still in the top 10% most deprived areas in the country.84 Gedling Borough Council 201052

Significant steps have been taken to tackle deprivation and comparison between 2000 and 2007 IMD figures reveal apositive pattern of change. This may be attributable to investment in Mansfield town centre, the impact of theGovernment’s Neighbourhood Renewal Fund intervention and a number of high profile regeneration projects.In total there are eight wards that have super output areas within the top 10% deprived in the country, withLindhurst ward featuring within the top ten percent deprived for barriers to housing.Twelve of Mansfield’s wards feature in the top 10% deprived for health and fifteen wards for education.There are a high percentage of unskilled jobs in the district – 29.3% are manual occupations compared to 18.2%nationally.Although rates of reported crime fell significantly by 20%, there were over 10,000 reported offences last year, whichis almost 100 offences for every 1,000 people. This rate is nearly twice as many as other similar areas in England andWales.Landlord services are responsible for approximately 6,800 properties across the district, with the management ofthose properties and estates delivered from the Civic Centre and from area offices at Mansfield Woodhouse, SandyLane and Warsop.The average cost of a detached house in Mansfield is £182,383.94 (2008, Land Registry).Despite increasing the percentage of vulnerable households living in decent homes in the private sector to 73.42%,over 25% are still living in poor quality housing.• 14.45% (or 6,800 of Mansfield’s 47,045 homes) is the responsibility of Landlord Services.• Number of private sector empty homes– 833 (first quarter data end of June 2010)• Number of private sector homes vacant for more than six months ‐ (568 first quarter data end of June 2010)• Average length of time spent in temporary accommodation 1 st April 2010‐ 9.5 days.The 2008 Place Survey shows that 23% of people surveyed stated that ‘activities for teenagers’ were important inmaking somewhere a good place to live. 43% stated that ‘activities for teenagers’ needed most improving, replacingcrime as the most important area for improvement.Through close working between Mansfield District Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and the NHS, a wideselection of opportunities have been provided for young people in Mansfield to live active and healthy lifestyles in asafe and stable environment.The Mansfield Youth Mayor and Deputy Youth Mayor’s brief is to represent the views of young people in the districtand have an influencing role in local decision making. They will consult with young people through a variety ofnetworks including schools and the Mansfield Youth Assembly, which will be chaired by the Youth Mayor. TheDeputy Youth Mayor is also part of the Mansfield Youth Assembly Executive.Rushcliffe is the most affluent area in the county, with higher than average income. Prior to the “economicdownturn”, house prices were buoyant in Rushcliffe, with an average house costing around £226,000 (2008).Rushcliffe is a popular place to live, with nearly 80% of homes being owner‐occupied.Homes in Rushcliffe are generally bigger than houses in the rest of the county 85 . About one‐fifth of houses areoccupied by married couples with dependent children and 16% by married couples without children. 27% of homeshouse single people and 6% comprise lone parents. 40% of households have two or more cars.Social housing stock accounts for only 8.1% of all housing. All social housing in Rushcliffe is owned and managed byRegistered Social Landlords (RSLs), since voluntary transfer took place of the Council’s housing to Spirita. Social85 Census 200153

housing tends to be distributed in urban areas and towns. The social housing stock mirrors the areas where childpoverty exists within Rushcliffe.There are low rates of graffiti within Rushcliffe, but it is more common in areas that have higher instances in thoseareas where child poverty is experienced. The Borough Council operates a policy of graffiti removal within 24 hours,so even within these areas, it is quiet low 86 .Rushcliffe lies immediately south of the city of Nottingham and the River Trent, and its economy is closely linkedwith that of Greater Nottingham. Established industries include the British Geological Survey at Keyworth, BritishGypsum at East Leake and John Deere, a world leader in producing agricultural machinery.Rushcliffe is not generally a deprived area, ranking 331 st (out of 354) on a national deprivation scale, although thereare some pockets of need, for example in parts of Cotgrave.Rushcliffe has a relatively low unemployment level of 1.8%, the lowest in Nottinghamshire, and significantly morepeople in the borough are self‐employed than the national and county averages.Rushcliffe offers good public transport links by bus and road to work within the district and city, and good rail links tothe rest of the country.East Midlands Airport lies just outside the borough boundary, and there is good access to the midland and east coastrail lines, and the M1 and A1. The A453, A46 and A52 trunk roads cross the borough and are generally considered tobe in need of improvement.In Bingham, West Chapel Lane has been set aside for business development, as a part of the Rushcliffe adopted LocalPlan. The granting of planning permission for the Cotgrave Colliery site in November 2010 has the potential to create500 new jobs within the area.There are industrial estates within Bingham, Cotgrave, Keyworth South and Ruddington which offer access toemployment opportunities.1.6 Are we at risk of missing families in poverty within relatively affluent areas? Where are there largeconcentrations or hidden pockets of poverty?In spite of the well‐acknowledged higher levels of deprivation in the north‐west of the county, Figures 1.4a to 1.4nindicate that each district in Nottinghamshire includes wards where over 10% of children are living in poverty. Forexample, despite Rushcliffe having less than 10% of children in poverty, there are localities that are hidden behindthe overall average. Cotgrave Ward, for example, has child poverty levels of 19.6%, Keyworth South 13.5%, andBingham West 15.5%.The ward in the county with the highest proportion of children living in poverty is Ravendsale (42.7%) in Mansfield.The contrasts within districts are stark – Gedling, for example, has a range from 1.6% in Ravenshead Ward to 37.8%in Killisick Ward. Even in the more deprived areas of Ashfield and Mansfield, there are differences (such as from 4.8%in Berry Hill Ward in Mansfield up to 42.7% in Ravensdale Ward), though these districts have less polarisationbecause the vast majority of wards are at levels above 10%.It is clearly important to drill down to local data to ensure smaller pockets of child poverty are not missed. An evenlower level than wards is the ‘Lower Super Output Area’ (LSOA), which represents a population of about 1,500people or approximately 400 households. When the county is examined at this level, a wider dichotomy of childpoverty levels can be seen. Newark & Sherwood, for example, has a range of LSOAs from 1.2% of children in povertyto 54.8%. All districts have LSOAs with poverty levels below 3% and five of the seven districts have LSOAs withpoverty levels above 50% (the exceptions are Broxtowe and Rushcliffe, whose highest are 42.4% and 36.8%86 Rushcliffe Borough Council 201054

espectively). There is a danger that these areas of high child poverty may be masked by data which is averaged outand examined solely at a district or even ward level.It is important for local planners to be aware of this data to enable the appropriate location of interventions andservices to reach families experiencing the greatest levels of poverty. Even within wards when looking at LSOA data,it is clear that some LSOA areas within a hot spot ward are not experiencing high levels of poverty. Services offeringoutreach provision, in particular, should aim to familiarise themselves with the LSOA areas with the greatest levels ofneed.Rural PovertyAccording to a recent report by the Commission for Rural Communities 87 , people in rural areas need to earn up to20% more than those in urban areas in order to reach an acceptable living standard. In a hamlet, a family of fourneeds £72.20 more per week than a similar urban family.According to the report, to afford a minimum standard of living, the following income is required:Table 1.6aUrban Rural town Village HamletSingle adult, no £14,436 £15,644 £17,863 £18,577childrenCouple, two £29,727 £37,841 £40,073 £42,277childrenLone parent, £12,454 £17,773 £19,431 £19,980One childSource: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, based on April 2010 pricesThe report cited transport and fuel as the main extra cost burdens. A car is a significant additional cost for ruralhouseholds, because pubic transport may not necessarily be adequate, and many face higher energy bills becausethey are not always connected to mains gas.A further study carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2010 also identified that the minimum cost ofliving in rural areas is greater than that in urban areas. The difference is not caused by higher costs across the board,but, as mentioned above, mainly by the higher cost of transport and domestic fuel. The most important factor inhigher minimum rural costs is a lack of adequate public transport, so that most rural households need cars 88 . Peoplein rural areas typically need to spend 10%–20% more on everyday requirements than those in urban areas. The moreremote the area, the greater these additional costs.The consequence of these higher costs is that families in rural areas need earnings well in excess of the minimumwage to afford the necessities of life. Yet low pay is more common in rural than in urban areas, creating a doubledisadvantage. As a consequence, while the visible swathes of poverty in some UK cities are not evident in rural areas,the worst‐off rural families are likely to have an income well below a socially acceptable minimum, even if they havejobs.There are pockets of poverty within rural areas of Nottinghamshire. Data from Rural Community Action inNottinghamshire 89 has identified that:• 17.6% of the population in rural areas in Nottinghamshire are aged under‐16, a slightly lower proportion thanacross rural areas in England as a whole (17.9%).• Rural Nottinghamshire has a higher proportion of lone parent households (17.3% of households with dependentchildren) than across rural England as a whole (14.3%.)• Across rural areas in Nottinghamshire, 5,720 children live in income deprived households (22.4% of all children inincome deprived households across Nottinghamshire).87 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business‐1181238488 Smith, N, Davis A and Hirsch D (2010) ‘A minimum income standard for rural areas’ Joseph Rowntree Foundation, November 201089 Rural Community Action Nottinghamshire, http://www.rcan.org.uk55

• Across rural Nottinghamshire, 14.2% of all children live in income deprived households, higher than theproportion across rural England as a whole (11.0%).• In addition, 6,180 children are living in households where no members of the household are in work (22.7% of allsuch children in Nottinghamshire).• 13.9% of children in Nottinghamshire are living in households where all adults are out of work, higher thanacross rural areas in England as a whole (10.7%).1.7 Which groups in Nottinghamshire are most at risk and where should we target them? What are theinequalities between these groups and their peers?Children and families most at risk of child poverty have been highlighted throughout this needs assessment. Amatrix of relevant information about these groups is included in Appendix 5.At risk groups can be found in all districts across Nottinghamshire. Larger concentrations of particular groups can befound in some areas where, for example, there is more social housing or temporary accommodation or, in the caseof Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) groups, where there are authorised sites.A study undertaken in 2007 by Tribal Consultants on behalf of Nottinghamshire (excluding Bassetlaw) andNottingham City revealed that:• There was an estimated population of 1,479 Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) children in 448 households• 508 of the above were estimated to be living on authorised sites, 746 in housing, 172 on unauthoriseddevelopments and 53 in unauthorised encampments• Newark & Sherwood had the highest number of households (256), followed by Ashfield (48), Gedling (26) andRushcliffe (14). [Nottingham City had 94 and the remaining boroughs/districts had numbers in single figures.]The vast majority of GRT pupils registered on roll with schools in January 2010 were resident in Newark & Sherwood(76%) (Figure 1.7a)Figure 1.7a Number of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils on roll at Nottinghamshire Schools (January 2010)Number of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils onroll at Nottinghamshire schools (January 2010)AshfieldMansfieldGedlingBroxtow e, 5Rushcliffe, 15Bassetlaw , 29New ark, 174New arkBassetlawRushcliffeBroxtow eAshfieldGedlingMansfieldSource: School Census, January 2010[Ashfield, Gedling and Mansfield numbers are below five and suppressed]The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) identified that there are larger concentrations of GRTgroups in Newark and Sherwood District than across Nottinghamshire as a whole. Newark and Sherwood Districtcouncil have the greatest level of official sites for this at risk group and so will consistently see higher numbers intheir area 90 . It is, however, important to note that Bassetlaw have not been included in the GTAA.90 Nottinghamshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment April 201056

Nottinghamshire has an estimated (est.) 6.6% black and minority ethnic (BME 91 ) population of 0‐19 year olds, with the highest numbers in the conurbationareas of Broxtowe (est. 2,400), Gedling (est. 2,400) and Rushcliffe (est. 2,100) (Table 1.7b). The largest ethnic groups are White/Black Caribbean Mixed(1.3%), Indian (1%) and Pakistani (0.9%), followed by White/Asian Mixed (0.7%), Black Caribbean and Chinese (both 0.4%) and Black African (0.3%). Thereare no reliable numbers of dependent children of migrant workers.Table 1.7b Estimated resident population (0‐19 year olds) by ethnic group (mid‐2007)WHITE MIXED ASIAN OR ASIAN BRITISH BLACK OR BLACK BRITISHCHINESE OROTHER ETHNICGROUPSWhite andBlackCaribbeanWhiteandBlackAfricanWhiteandAsianBritish IrishOtherWhiteOtherMixed Indian Pakistani BangladeshiOtherAsianBlackCaribbeanBlackAfricanOtherBlack Chinese OtherAshfield 26.6 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Bassetlaw 25.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0Broxtowe 20.8 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1Gedling 22.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1Mansfield 22.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0Newark & Sherwood 25.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0Rushcliffe 22.7 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1Nottinghamshire 165.9 0.3 2.1 2.4 0.4 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.6 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.5Source: Office of National Statistics, 2010 (Figures may not sum due to rounding) – Figures in thousandsAs of the end of March 2010, there were 49 unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) in the care of Nottinghamshire County Council 92 , mostlyoriginating from Afghanistan.91 BME in this document refers to ‘Mixed’, ‘Asian or Asian British’, ‘Black or Black British’ and ‘Chinese or other Ethnic Groups’.92 SSDA903 return, August 201057

Families in temporary housing can be found across Nottinghamshire with the majority located in Mansfield, which isreflective of the supported accommodation units available in Mansfield as can be evidenced in 1.12.We do not have exact data on the numbers and location of teenage mothers and fathers in Nottinghamshire. Weknow, however, where teenage conceptions occur (refer to Figure 3.2c). It is known that, following conception, moreyoung women opt to continue with a pregnancy in areas of greatest disadvantage, whereas young women withhigher educational aspirations and less poverty will choose to terminate a pregnancy. There will therefore be moreteenage parents from Mansfield and Ashfield than in Rushcliffe. The exact location of teenage parents is unavailablefor use here, as this data would be identifiable. Data on young fathers is not collected by any service consistently,making it impossible to identify where young fathers reside. Furthermore, there are greater concentrations ofteenage mothers in wards where most supported accommodation is available.The highest proportion of lone parents, according to the 2001 Census, live in Mansfield (15.96%), Ashfield (13.73%),Bassetlaw (13.17%) and Gedling (13.09%) (Table 1.7c). The lowest proportion live in Rushcliffe (9.35%).Table 1.7c Location and proportion of lone parents (2001)All parents 16‐74 withdependent childrenLoneparents %Ashfield 24,660 3,386 13.73Bassetlaw 23,651 3,116 13.17Broxtowe 22,823 2,649 11.61Gedling 24,135 3,159 13.09Mansfield 21,907 3,497 15.96Newark &Sherwood 23,310 2,944 12.63Rushcliffe 23,219 2,170 9.35Nottinghamshire 163,705 20,921 12.78East Midlands 904,786 118,025 13.04England 10,485,499 1,505,603 14.36Source: Census 2001During the development of this needs assessment, we have received a wealth of information about families’experiences of poverty. It is evident that although data can pin point wards and Local Super Output Areas with highlevels of child poverty, there are groups of children and families at risk of poverty across Nottinghamshire. Womenand children experiencing domestic violence, for example, live across Nottinghamshire. Some of these women willbe in work and yet, by experiencing domestic violence, this can lead them into a cycle of poverty. (Refer to 3.11 foranalysis).11.9% of the county’s 16‐64 population are disabled (according to the definition within the Disability DiscriminationAct, 2004, now the Equality Act 2010) or have a work‐limiting disability. This is slightly higher than the East Midlands(11.3%) and the UK (10.8%). Figure 1.7d shows the proportion across the county, ranging from 8.6% in Rushcliffe to13.4% in Gedling. There is no register of disabled children in the county.

Figure 1.7d Disabled people aged 16‐64 by district (April 2009 – March 2010)% of 16-64 age who are disabled by degree of disability25.020.015.010.05.00.0AshfieldBassetlawBroxtoweGedlingMansfieldNewark & SherwoodRushcliffeNottinghamshireEast MidlandsUnited KingdomSource: Office for National Statistics, 2010DDA = Disability Discrimination Act definitiondisabled DDA & also w ork-limiting disabled DDA only disabledThe 2001 census also gives details of the percentage of working age residents in the county with limiting long termillness (LLTI) (Figure 1.7e). Mansfield has the highest proportion (12.12%), followed by Ashfield (10.91%) andBassetlaw (10.8%). Rushcliffe has the lowest (6.5%), well below the county, regional and national averages.Figure 1.7e% of people of working age with limiting long term illness (2001)%1312111098765AshfieldBassetlawBroxtoweGedlingMansfieldNewark & SherwoodRushcliffeNottinghamshireEast MidlandsEnglandAshfieldBassetlawBroxtow eGedlingMansfieldNew ark & Sherw oodRushclif f eNottinghamshireEast MidlandsEnglandSource: Census 20011.8 Who uses our parks and play areas? Are the poorest able to access leisure activities?A consultation exercise with parents accessing Nottinghamshire children’s centres identified that the mostrequested idea to improve their area was specifically for ‘better/safer/cleaner playgrounds and parks’. This was alsosupported in the comments made by parents in focus groups, where the request was either for more playgrounds orplay spaces or for those that exist to be made safe, usually through the removal of glass or needles. This was highestin Newark & Sherwood (29%), and much lower in Broxtowe at only 15% of all requests. The same consultationexercise identified that parents wanted more play areas, both indoors and outdoors, varying across all areas andgroups of parents, although indoor play was mentioned less frequently by older parents, presumably with older59

children for whom this might not be such a requirement. Men were more likely to mention the need for swimmingpool or sports facilities than women (9% compared to 4%), evenly spread by all across all districts 93 .Some examples of local evidence of who uses parks and play areas are included below.Gedling Borough Council is currently gathering data through public consultation for their parks and open spacesstrategy. They have completed user consultation and are conducting general consultation by asking residents tocomplete a questionnaire online or when they visit various locations around the borough e.g. libraries and leisure,centres, GP surgeries etc. The consultation does not include any information on what their socio‐economic positionis. However, it does include information on most of the equality strands such as age, gender, disability, andethnicity. The general consultation questionnaire was designed by Strategic Leisure.Gedling Borough Council is mapping all their parks and open spaces. Once this work is done, it will highlight if thereis under‐provision in specific areas of the borough which could include areas where child poverty is at its highest.When the consultation is completed, Gedling Borough Council will use the findings to inform their work and theinformation will also help to inform the child poverty strategy. The Parks and Open Spaces Strategy will becompleted later in 2011/12.In Rushcliffe Borough Council there is no measurement of which children and young people are accessing the parksand play areas within the borough. However, there is a good geographical spread of facilities for a range of agesacross the borough and there has been investment into play within the most deprived Cotgrave ward. All outdoorplay facilities and parks are free of charge to access. Furthermore, Cotgrave has been the focus for the positivefutures and youth service provision of free/low cost holiday sports activities.The Borough Council offers a concessionary price for people in receipt of benefits which allows a 50% reduction onprice for activities at all times. To date, 1,357 concessionary loyalty cards have been issued across all of the leisurecentre sites. Leisure centres are available in West Bridgford, Keyworth, Cotgrave, Bingham and East Leake.Initiatives such as the ASA’s free swimming lessons programme have also been targeted at the poorest families.Contact was made with families at the council’s hostel and two families took part in the courses of lessons.Only 20% 94 of respondents in Bassetlaw have used outdoor sports facilities in the last 12 months, 14% of whom doso at least once a week or more often. 42% of all users are aged 25‐44. Despite 57% being unable to comment onpreferred travel times, the largest proportion of respondents (72%) will travel by car or bus to reach outdoorfacilities. The quantity of outdoor sports facilities in Bassetlaw are considered by the majority of respondents (81%)to be about right. More than four fifths (85%) of respondents consider the quality of outdoor sports facilities to beat least average.Nottinghamshire County Council completed the development of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Schools inBassetlaw in 2007. Six community secondary schools in Worksop, Retford and Tuxford area are managed by ActiveLeisure Management (ALM) and each has a floodlit all weather pitch, sports hall, studios, large main halls and tenniscourts. Most of these facilities are available for hire – 6 pm‐10 pm weekdays and from 9 am at weekends. BarnsleyPremier Leisure manages the centres at Worksop, Retford and Harworth.21% of respondents in Bassetlaw have used indoor sports facilities in the last 12 months and 60% of all users areaged 25‐44, with an additional 24% aged 16‐24. There is a difference in use by gender with 61% male and 30%female. The vast majority 85% feel that the availability is about right.Only a small proportion (4%) of residents across Bassetlaw have not visited any open space in the previous 12months. Accessibility of open space is rated as good/very good by most. A significant number of young people haveindicated that they feel unsafe using parks and open spaces.93 Lang Research Associates and Nottinghamshire County Council 200994 Knight, Kavanagh and Page – Bassetlaw Open Space and Playing Pitch Strategy 201060

The District Council has a Sports Development Team, amongst its roles are:• Support the workers of the Bassetlaw Sports Forum and various sports specific action groups• Operate a comprehensive Coach Education and Coach Development Programme• Offer support across the district to enhance sports club development with extensive outreach programme• Organise an annual sports calendar of events linked to the Bassetlaw Schools Sports Partnership, including theAnnual Youth Games• Organise the Annual Bassetlaw Sports Awards – a review of the district’s sporting achievements• Support the S.A.N.D. (See the Ability Not the Disability) Sports Club which offers twice weekly sports sessions foryoung people with a disability• Organise weekly ‘Play with Purpose’ special needs swimming lessons• Manage and administer the district performance swim squads (the Bassetlaw Swim Squads)• Through partnership‐working, offer Exercise and Physical Activities such as Exercise on Referral, Walking theWay to Health, Doorstep walks and other schemes across the whole district• Deliver outreach multi‐skills school holiday activity schemes in isolated rural communities throughout the year• Manage the young persons social inclusion sports project (A Sporting Chance)• Manage the young persons social inclusion football project (A Footballing Chance)Ashfield District Council (ADC) collects data on usage for the five Green Flag award winning parks through a usersurvey. Data collected includes sex, age range, and postcode, how often they visit the park, how they travel to thepark, reason for visit, satisfaction, ethnic group and disability. ADC does not collect data on whether or not childrenare accessing the parks via this User Survey.All parks and play areas in Ashfield are free to use and many parks benefit from free activities throughout the year.ADC has invested in the parks and play areas to ensure that quality parks and play areas are available to thecommunity.An Active Lifestyles Strategy is in place for Ashfield, delivered by the Active Ashfield Community Sports Networkwhich has led to a range of activity in Ashfield.The Mind Exercise Nutrition Do it (MEND) Programme, which provides support to families to achieve a healthyweight, has benefited 65 families since May 2008, with 11 programmes held in leisure centres.An AdiZone was opened in November 2009 on Sutton Lawn, measuring 625sq metres and boasting sporting facilitiesinspired by Olympic and Paralympic sports, including a basketball, football and tennis area, a climbing wall, anoutdoor gym and an open area to encourage dance, aerobics and gymnastics, all available completely free of charge.A second AdiZone was launched in Hucknall as part of Active Ashfield's pledge to create a legacy from 2012 througha free, accessible facility. A programme of activities were delivered on the adiZone at Sutton Lawn over the summer.1.9 Is there sufficient social housing?District and borough councils report on housing sufficiency for the Housing Strategy Statistical, so data is available atdistrict levels. Data reports identify how many housing applicants need two or more bedrooms and this is used as arough proxy for families, although it will include some other households, for example single people with a carer.Councils will identify if applicants are identified in a ‘Reasonable Preference’ category, which means having urgenthousing need (e.g. overcrowding, medical need to move, threatened with homelessness etc.) An example of howdistrict councils assess this data has been included from Gedling Borough Council.Table 1.9a Gedling Borough Council Housing applicants 2008‐10List reporting date Total on list Needing 2 ormore beds1 April 2010 1497 574 2491 April 2009 1800 680 2951 April 2008 4074 1879 9461In reasonablepreference category

Ashfield Homes Ltd does not record the number of families on the housing register, what is recorded is the numberof applicants with a one bedroom need, two bedroom need, etc. Those with a one bedroom need will be singlepeople or couples. A two bed need will be single people with access to children, couples and one/two child families.A three bed need is families with two or more children. A four bed need is families with four or more children. Thefigures for the last two years are as follows:Table 1.9bHousehold type No. on register asof 1/4/2008No. on register asof 1/4/2009No. on register asof 1/4/20101 bedroom need 328 461 3802 bedroom need 3340 4234 36453 bedroom need 653 954 7993+ bedroom need 141 186 153Unfortunately, they cannot give a breakdown of the reasons why the applicants are on the housing register.There are currently 1,022 families on the waiting list for social housing in Bassetlaw, the District Council cannothowever provide trend data for last three years due to change in monitoring system. Only a few priorities forstatutory overcrowding are given each year (in single figures), but this may be due to the statutory overcrowdingrules being rather stringent. The priority cases for overcrowding are few, but we do have Band C in the lettings policyfor people in cramped living/sharing facilities. There are applicants in this category but it is difficult to analyse whoare families with children and who are sharing houses of multiple occupation.Housing in MansfieldAs an area suffering from high levels of deprivation, low income and relatively high unemployment, housingaffordability and increasing house prices present a particularly significant problem for the district. The impact of this isfelt most by young people, many of whom are struggling to enter the housing market.Further challenge comes from housing demand. At present supply falls short of demand, increasing pressure onpartners to look at new ways of managing empty properties, redeveloping old sites and identifying new sites fordevelopment.The quality of housing is another persistent concern, particularly in the private sector. To address this issue, theDecent Homes Improvement Programme will continue to be rolled out on all Council owned housing and a strategyfor private sector housing will also be implemented.Another challenge is presented by climate change and the need for increased housing energy efficiency. This needs tobe considered in the refurbishment of old housing and the development of new homes. As a district with high levelsof older housing stock, this is a particularly significant problem.The 2001 Census results showed that for Nottinghamshire as a whole, 4.27% of households were without centralheating and 3.5% were overcrowded. Within the county, the district having the highest percentage of householdswithout central heating was Broxtowe (5.02%), whilst the district with the highest rate of overcrowding was Ashfield(3.86%).In terms of dependent children living in overcrowded households, the highest proportion in the county in 2001 werein Mansfield (8.19%) and Ashfield (7.91%), with the lowest in Rushcliffe (4.42%), though the national figure wasconsiderably higher than any Nottinghamshire district (Figure 1.9c).62

Figure 1.9c% dependent children living in overcrowded households(2001)%13121110987654AshfieldBassetlawBroxtoweGedlingMansfieldNewark & SherwoodRushcliffeNottinghamshireEast MidlandsEnglandAshfieldBassetlawBroxtow eGedlingMansfieldNew ark & Sherw oodRushcliffeNottinghamshireEast MidlandsEnglandSource: Census 2001Census data is from 2001 and does not provide an up to date picture of overcrowding. District councils are unable toprovide any evidence on the number of social housing tenants who are living in overcrowded conditions. This isbecause they do not do an annual check on who is living in a property. Family members come and go and tenants donot contact district councils to advise of changes.1.10 How many homeless families are there in Nottinghamshire? How does this compare in each district andwith stat neighbours?On 31 st March 2009, just under 100 families in Nottinghamshire with dependent children were accommodated intemporary accommodation. This compares to 142 the previous year 95 . The majority of these were in MansfieldDistrict (39 families), with notable numbers in the boroughs of Broxtowe (17 families), Gedling (16 families) andRushcliffe (12 families). However, the real extent of numbers of homeless families is not known and these officialfigures represent only a proportion.Table 1.10a Number of homeless households accommodated in temporary accommodationNo. families with dependent childrenon 31/3/08No. families with dependent childrenon 31/3/09Ashfield 6 *Bassetlaw 0 0Broxtowe 23 17Gedling 27 16Mansfield 51 39Newark & Sherwood 15 9Rushcliffe 20 12Total 142 93 + *Source: P1(E) returns, 2008‐2009 [*Number below five and suppressed]95 Nottinghamshire JSNA, 201063

The significant reduction over twelve months is due to the government’s drive for increased prevention(Homelessness Act 2002 and further policy development in 2004). This is exemplified in Table 1.10b, with an averagereduction in homeless acceptances (all ages) between 2007/08 and 2008/09 of 25% across the county 96 .Table 1.10b Numbers accepted as being homeless and in priority need (all ages)Successful positive action(numbers prevented orrelieved 2008/09)Numbers acceptedas homeless and inpriority need2008/09Homeless and inpriority need (rateper 1000households2008/09)Homeless and inpriority need (%change from2007/08 to2008/09)Ashfield 30 30 0.6 ‐40%Bassetlaw 44 32 0.7 ‐57%Broxtowe 233 19 0.4 ‐67%Gedling 114 103 2.1 47%Mansfield 23 199 4.6 ‐20%Newark & Sherwood 94 89 1.9 ‐14%Rushcliffe 123 32 0.7 ‐24%Total 661 504 1.6 ‐25%Source: P1(E) returns, 2008‐2009Positive action in preventing homelessness, such as assistance to obtain alternative accommodation or remain in theexisting home, is being undertaken across each borough/district (Table 1.10c).Table 1.10c Number of cases where positive action was successful (prevented/relieved) (all ages)Apr – June 2008 Jul ‐ Sept 2008 Oct ‐ Dec 2008 Jan ‐ Mar 2009 Total 2008/09Ashfield 6 10 5 9 30Bassetlaw 16 13 * 11 40 + *Broxtowe 55 43 73 62 233Gedling 25 33 27 29 114Mansfield 0 12 7 * 19 + *Newark & Sherwood 25 22 19 28 94Rushcliffe 43 33 28 19 123Source: P1(E) returns, 2009 [*Number below five and suppressed]The Homeless Watch Survey 97 is conducted in a two week window every autumn to provide a snapshot ofhomelessness and the needs of homeless people in the county 98 . It records the details of everyone who presented ashomeless to participating agencies during the fortnight. 510 agencies were invited to take part and 136 did so (aresponse rate of 26.6% 99 ), so data quoted below gives an indication of the general level and nature of homelessness,rather than a definitive statement. It is also based on the number of presentations by people who were homelessand not the actual number of individuals.The survey found that the proportion of young men aged 16 and 17 in the homeless population was four timeshigher than the general Nottinghamshire male population of the same age and those aged 18 to 24 was nearly threetimes higher 100 . The proportion of 16 and 17 year old women amongst the homeless population was nearly six timeshigher than in the general Nottinghamshire female population of that age, and for women aged between 18 and 24,this proportion increases to nearly seven times higher.96 Homelessness strategies are published by each district/borough council and can be accessed via each organisation’s website.97 The full 2009 Homeless Watch Survey results can be accessed at: www.hlg.org.uk98 In the context of the Homeless Watch Survey, all figures quoted include Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County combined.99 This is the lowest response rate since 2005 – the number of agencies taking part in the survey clearly influences the number of returns, sothe overall numbers of people included in the 2009 survey are lower than previous years. Rushcliffe Borough Council was one of the agenciesnot taking part, so no data is presented here for Rushcliffe.100 General county population figures quoted in this sub‐section use 2001 census data.64

The Homelessness Watch Survey identified that 46% of 16‐17 year olds were women, which is the lowest level sincethe survey began (62% in 2005, 52% in 2006 and 63% in 2007, 70% in 2008). However, the 46% figure is higher thanthe 37% of total presentations made by women of all ages, which highlights the findings reported in previous yearsby Homeless Watch that homelessness in Nottinghamshire amongst sixteen and seventeen year olds impactsdisproportionately on young women.Families of all types made up 17% of all presentations between 30 September 2009 and 11 October 2009, whichincluded 89 single parents and 26 couples with children (Table 92). The proportion of couples with children hasdecreased this year compared to last year (from 7% to 4%), but is at the same level as in 2005. Overall, fewerfamilies presented as homeless in 2009 (17%) compared to 2008 (21%) and 2007 (24%). However, this year’spercentage of presenting families is at the same level as was recorded in 2005 and 2006. Over 34 of those presentingwith children were 24 years of age or under themselves (breakdown: 27 single parents and seven couples).A third of single people with dependent children explained that their homelessness was due to a violent relationshipbreakdown with a partner, and 12% because of a non‐violent breakdown. 15% of couples with children also citedviolent breakdown in a relationship with a partner as being the cause of their homelessness. 15% of couples withchildren became homeless because they were required to leave the National Asylum Support Service and 19%because of termination of their Assured Shorthold Tenancy. 12 of the people with dependent children (both couplesand single people) were refugees or asylum seekers and 15 of the people with dependent children had experiencedhomelessness on more than one occasion (2% of the sample), compared with 34 people in 2008 (4% of the sample).The number of homeless children presenting with families was 183, which is 52% fewer than the numbers of childrenseen at the highest levels in 2007 (384 children) (Table 1.10d). However, as mentioned above, the overall numbers ofpeople included in the survey are lower than previous years.More than a quarter of children with presenting households were aged between 5‐10 years old (26%). This is a slightincrease on figures from the 2008 survey which showed that 22% of children were aged between 5‐10 years old.More than half of the children were aged under five (52%) and the percentage of babies and children aged betweenbirth and four has been steadily rising since 2005, when the figure was 39%.Table 1.10d Children with presenting households2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Age of children Num % Num % Num % Num % Num %0‐4 years old 115 39 108 42 171 45 148 49 96 525‐10 years old 89 30 76 29 101 26 67 22 48 2611‐15 years old 61 21 56 22 63 16 49 16 26 1416‐17 years old 18 6 15 6 22 6 21 7 8 418 years old and over 11 4 5 2 27 7 15 5 5 3Total 294 100 260 100 384 100 300 100 183 100Source: Homeless Watch Survey, 2010Table 1.10e shows where homeless pregnant women (including those who might have been pregnant) presented tothe survey. Fewer pregnant women presented in Mansfield than in the previous year (from 15 women to belowfive), and Bassetlaw saw the highest percentage outside Nottingham City.Table 1.10e Boroughs/districts where pregnant women presentedDistrict/Borough Number %Ashfield * ‐Bassetlaw 6 15Broxtowe * ‐Gedling * ‐Mansfield * ‐Newark & Sherwood 5 13Nottingham City 20 51Total 31 + * 100Source: Homeless Watch Survey, 2010[*Number below five and suppressed]65

Each district council offers a range of interventions to prevent homelessness. Examples from Ashfield Districtinclude the following:The Housing Options Team at Ashfield District Council endeavours to prevent homelessness from occurringwherever possible. A range of services and initiatives are available to households that are experiencing housingdifficulties.• Housing Advice Drop Ins ‐ A drop in service is held every Tuesday afternoon between 2 and 4 pm at the CouncilOffices in Kirkby‐in‐Ashfield. This is supplemented by fortnightly drop ins at the Hucknall and Sutton officesbetween 10 and 11.30 am. A Housing Officer can offer general housing advice, including tenants’ rights tohomelessness, signposting and referrals.• Bond Guarantee Scheme ‐ The scheme helps people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness andon a low income or benefits to access private rented accommodation. The scheme provides landlords with awritten guarantee (not cash) of a bond up to a maximum of £500. There have been 21 successful applicationsfrom April 2010 to date.• Mortgage Rescue Scheme ‐ Ashfield District Council actively participates in the Government’s Mortgage RescueScheme. This scheme can help if a household can’t pay their mortgage and the lender is taking action torepossess their home. The scheme is available if the household has dependent children, or anyone is pregnant,elderly, disabled or long‐term ill, and if you would otherwise be able to get help as homeless if the home wasrepossessed. There are two options: Shared Equity and Government Mortgage to Rent. The first step is to makean appointment with the Housing Options Team. Ashfield District Council has successfully completed tworescues. A further nine cases are ongoing.• School Outreach Sessions ‐ A Service Level Agreement exists between Ashfield District Council and The KirkbyTrust. As part of the Homelessness Prevention Action Plan, £4500 of funding was allocated in the form of agrant to The Kirkby Trust to continue the provision of the school Education Programme. Up to 12, one and a halfhour sessions will be carried out at local schools. The sessions will educate pupils on homelessness, the causesof homelessness and myth dispelling.• Prisoners Housing Advice Surgery ‐ A housing officer attends an advice surgery at Nottingham Prison.• Sanctuary Scheme ‐ was introduced in October 2010 and gives households / individuals who are experiencing /threatened by domestic violence the option of remaining in their home through the installation of securitymeasures. Offering this service means that those people who do not want to move can feel safe enough toremain in their property/tenancy, rather than make a homelessness application or be provided with temporaryaccommodation. This scheme is purely at the request of the customer and no household would be forced toremain if they do not wish to do so. However, it is anticipated that offering this service will enable furtherincreases in successful homelessness preventions. Further improvement is anticipated by other ongoing work ‐for example the work of the Homeless Prevention Officer (Mortgage Rescue Scheme etc) and the increased proactivework of the Housing Options Officer.• The scheme is run by the Council in conjunction with a range of external agencies and partners including thePolice, Fire Service, Ashfield Partnership Against Crime (APAC), the County Council, Ashfield Homes Limited(AHL) and the voluntary sector. Co‐ordination of the scheme will be conducted from within the HousingOptions Service by the Homelessness Prevention Officer. ADC has approved funding of £7000 for the financialyear 2010/2011 for the Scheme.High risk referrals have been received since the scheme went live at the end of October 2010.• Repossession Prevention Fund ‐ The aim of this fund is to enable authorities to extend small loans/grants tofamilies at risk of homelessness through repossession or eviction. The Council’s share of this national fund was£26,000. The fund is used to provide grants of between £1,000 up to a maximum of £5,000 per household. The66

primary aim is to prevent repossessions or evictions where households are struggling to pay their mortgage orrent due to the current climate and through no fault of their own.The funding should only be used where other mechanisms do not exist to solve the problem with a solutionbeing sustainable in the long term.The Authority works closely with the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, which makes referrals based upon the fund’scriteria and a Common Financial Statement.• Early Warning Protocols ‐ Ashfield Homes contact the Housing Options Team to make them aware ofimpending action due to be taken. The team contacts the households to offer them advice and assistance.• Citizen’s Advice Bureau Debt Advice ‐ Grant funding to the value of £32,562 was given to Ashfield CitizensAdvice Bureau (CAB) to enable them to provide debt advice sessions at Ashfield District Council’s main office inKirkby from January 2010 for one year. This was to provide residents with both debt advice and incomemaximisation advice. The debt advice would help with re‐organising household debts in such a way that thereis sufficient income available for a household to continue paying for their accommodation, whether this be atenancy in social housing, privately rented accommodation or an owner occupied property. Three appointmentswere available on three mornings of the week. Referrals from the CAB are also accepted to the RepossessionsPrevention Fund and the Mortgage Rescue Scheme.1.11 How many homeless young people (under the age of 20) are there in Notts? How does this compare indistricts and with stat neighbours?It is very difficult to get an accurate picture of youth homelessness across the county for a number of reasons. Someyoung people will stay with friends or family in very unsuitable situations. They may be ‘sofa surfing’ on a temporaryand/or overcrowded basis. Many do not present at their local council or housing agency ‐ of the 90 young peopleconsulted for the Supporting People Strategic Review 101 , 64 said that they did not go to the council for help whenthey had problems.Therefore the numbers of young people officially accepted as homeless by local authorities is significantly less thanthe number of those who present to those authorities or who go to supported accommodation directly (via selfreferralor a support worker). It is therefore important to note that the number of homeless young people in thecounty is substantially higher than the official acceptance figures indicate.Need can best be estimated by cross‐referencing numbers accepted by local authorities, numbers in (or waiting for)supported accommodation (though some may be those accepted by local authorities) and numbers of presentationsacross the county as evidenced in the Homeless Watch Survey 102 .Table 1.11a below shows the patterns of acceptances of homeless young people by local authorities over the lastthree years. These figures do not include those found to be intentionally homeless, having no priority or having nolocal connection (although these young people may still be homeless and in need of housing and support), or anyyoung people who did not present at the council. It also does not include those prevented from homelessness.During the year 2008/09, there were 253 young people between the ages of 16 to 25 in the county accepted by localauthorities as being homeless. Of these, 29 were aged 16 or 17. The number in this age group accepted as homelesshas dropped at a county level but has increased in Bassetlaw. The numbers of 18‐25 year olds accepted as homelesshas risen by 15% since 2006/07 and Gedling and Bassetlaw have seen a substantial rise in acceptances of this agegroup (+26 and +24 respectively). The highest numbers of homelessness acceptances are in Mansfield, althoughnumbers there are decreasing.101 Nottinghamshire Supporting People Young People’s Services Strategic Review (2008‐09)http://www.nottssupportingpeople.org.uk/documents/list/young‐people's‐strategic‐review102 The full 2009 Homeless Watch Survey results can be accessed at: www.hlg.org.uk.67

Table 1.11a Numbers of young people accepted as homeless in Nottinghamshire 2006/07 – 2008/09District Year 16/17 HomelessAcceptances18 – 25 HomelessAcceptancesAshfieldBassetlawBroxtoweGedlingMansfieldNewark &SherwoodRushcliffe2006/07 * 112007/08 6 142008/09 * 92006/07 0 132007/08 * 212008/09 10 372006/07 0 62007/08 0 152008/09 * 92006/07 0 152007/08 * 212008/09 * 412006/07 23 982007/08 19 922008/09 6 722006/07 10 252007/08 * 192008/09 6 422006/07 7 262007/08 9 182008/09 * 14County total 2006/07 40 + * 1942007/08 43 2002008/09 29 224Source: P1(E) returns, 2006‐2009 [*Number below five and suppressed]In the Homeless Watch Survey 2009, 11% of 16/17 year olds presenting to the survey had a drug misuse issue and12% had an alcohol misuse support need. These percentages increased in the 18‐24 category to 18% and 14%respectively, but the highest levels were in older people.There were 73 care leavers included in the survey, 99 less than in 2005. Whilst this is the lowest number recordedover the years, 24% of data on the question of care leavers was missing, or recorded as unknown. When recalculatedto exclude where this information was missing the percentage of care leavers in this year’s survey is 14%. There hasbeen a decrease in presenting care leavers aged between 18 and 21 years old, with 25% of care leavers situated inthis age bracket compared to 31% in 2008. Those aged 22 and over made up the majority of presenting care leavers(60%), an increase on last year’s percentage (45%). Overall however, data on care leavers would suggest that slightlyfewer people with care backgrounds are presenting as homeless.1.12 Is supported accommodation being used by those who need it most?The Supporting People Young People’s Services Strategic Review 103 showed that, even though there has been areduction in homelessness throughout the county in the last four years, demand for supported accommodation stilloutstrips supply. There is more need in the north of the county, although it is accepted that there is still unmet needin the southern boroughs. Specific need exists for:• more direct or emergency accommodation• accommodation for teenage parents in some areas• more choice• better prevention• move on• more defined pathways through support services to release high support places.103 http://www.nottssupportingpeople.org.uk/documents/list/young‐people's‐strategic‐review68

As of July 2010, there were 21 specific young people's services provided by Supporting People in the county – threewere floating support and 18 were accommodation based. The total number of accommodation based support unitswas 249. These were distributed in the county as follows:Table 1.12a Supporting People Support Units (July 2010)District /Borough Support units District /Borough Support unitsMansfield 80 Gedling 9Newark & Sherwood 57 Broxtowe 15Bassetlaw 69 Rushcliffe 3Ashfield 16Source: Nottinghamshire Supporting People, 2010These are specifically for young people, but it should be noted that young people also use other services notdesignated for young people (for example, single homelessness, family homelessness and domestic violenceservices).Figure 1.12b shows that the number of 16 – 17 year olds receiving an accommodation service from SupportingPeople in 2008/09 was 206 (almost exactly the same as the previous year) and the number of 18 – 25 year oldstotalled 484 (an increase of 15% on the previous year).Figure 1.12bNumber of young people receiving anaccommodation service from NottinghamshireSupporting People60050040030020010002007/08 2008/0916-17 year olds18-25 year oldsSource: Nottinghamshire Supporting People, 2010A survey in September 2008 of 90 potential, current and ex‐ service users of supported accommodation identifiedthat:• For support and advice many went to friends and family rather than an agency• Only a quarter of the young people had been to their local council for advice and support. Young peoplewant local authorities to make their support and advice services more accessible to encourage them toapproach in the early stages before the problems escalate• Young people were open to a range of options for support and housing and would prefer a choice of options• Very few were offered home visits or mediation. Many received very general information which did notmeet their needs• There were a substantial number of young people who would like more support from the Job Centre to findwork or training• Concerns for the future include problems in finding a permanent home, work and being able to live withpartners and children.Other consultation over a number of years with young people in accommodation based services provided bySupporting People has identified that:69

• When thinking about where to live, the most important factor is to be near friends/family where they feelsafe• Budgeting was their biggest support need both now and once they were ready to move on 104• The experience of living in supported housing was good to very good and the support they got from workerswas also very good on the whole.Consultation by Supporting People on the needs of teenage mothers found that, although there is demand forfloating and accommodation based support, it is for low to medium support only. There is no call for a 24 hoursupported service. Many young mums live in supportive families but in overcrowded housing, so housing rather thansupport may be more important. As of July 2010, supported accommodation specifically for teenage parents wasprovided in Bassetlaw (17 units), Newark and Sherwood (5 units) and Gedling (6 units). Both Mansfield and Ashfieldhave other services run by local authorities funded by Supporting People that work with teenage parents.The JSNA 2010 highlights the move on progression data for vulnerable groups over a three year period. Teenageparents are the most likely to leave supported accommodation in a planned way (97% over three years) and thefigures for young people at risk are improving (64% in 2006/07 to 78% in 2008/09). The numbers of care leavers aresmall, so fluctuate, but 2008/09 showed a very positive five out of six young people moving on in a planned way.Figures for all groups have improved over time 105 .It is equally vital to provide care leavers with a stable and secure base from which they can concentrate on acquiringemployability skills. Provisional data for 2009/10 indicates that 91.5% of care leavers were in suitableaccommodation (NI 147), similar to the previous year (95.1%) 106 .The link between stable accommodation and reduced levels of re‐offending among ex‐offenders is well established.NI 46 measures young offenders’ access to suitable accommodation. As of March 2010, 96.6% of young offenderswere in suitable accommodation, the same figure as the previous year.1.13 How does child poverty manifest itself in relation to crime, offending and anti‐social behaviour?The Nottinghamshire County Strategic Assessment, presented to the Safer Nottinghamshire Board (SNB) inNovember 2010, introduced the concept Geographic Priority Areas. These are the areas with the highest levels ofcrime and disorder in the county, and which present the highest risk to the SNB. The highlighted cells show wherethe areas appear in both the county and Community Safety Partnership list. By correlating the child poverty indexwith the strategic priorities of the SNB, we can show where there is further consistency (bold text denotes areaswith the highest percentage of child poverty). The majority of Geographic Priority Areas identified by the SaferNottinghamshire Board correlate with both IDACI target areas and child poverty hot spots.Table 1.13a Geographic Priority Areas for the Safer Nottinghamshire Partnership 2010CountyAshfieldPartnershipAgainst Crime(APAC)Portland (MPAC) Sutton towncentre/NewCross (SuttonCentral/SuttonEast)Sherwood (MPAC) Stanton Hill(Sutton North)MansfieldPartnershipAgainst Crime(MPAC)Sherwood(Mansfield Towncentre)Portland (MansfieldTown centre)Bassetlaw, Newark& Sherwood (BNS)Worksop SouthEastCastleSouthNottinghamshireNetherfield &ColwickCarlton104 In relation to the topic of managing money, in the 2010 Tellus 4 survey, a third of respondents said they had never been given advice onmanaging money (worse than statistical neighbours and the national average) and less than a third of those who had received advice at schoolclassed the advice as ‘helpful’ (again, below statistical neighbours and England).105 Nottinghamshire JSNA 2010, Nottinghamshire County Council106 Nottinghamshire JSNA 2010, Nottinghamshire County Council70

Sutton Central (APAC) Coxmoor (Kirkby Ravensdale (subward)Worksop North Trent BridgeEast)WestSutton East (APAC) Huthwaite Oak Tree (subward)(emergingHarworthEastwood South(emerging)area)Ravensdale (MPAC) Magnus Beeston NorthSutton North (APAC) Worksop South Stapleford SouthWestWorksop South EastWorksop North St Marys(BNS)EastSutton West (APAC) East Retford East DaybrookCastle (BNS) East Retford West Stapleford NorthHucknall East (APAC)BoningtonNetherfield & ColwickCotgrave(South Notts)Harworth (BNS)Worksop North West(BNS)Kirkby East (APAC)Trent Bridge (SouthNotts)Eastwood South(South Notts)Hucknall Central(APAC)Carlton (South Notts)Chilwell West (SouthNotts)Kirkby Central (APAC)Source: Safer Nottinghamshire Partnership, 2010Evidence from the SNB also suggests a strong correlation between areas with a high percentage of child poverty andhigher levels of anti‐social behaviour 107 (ASB), although the same correlation is true for deprivation and ASB.Nevertheless, general levels of crime and ASB are falling in Nottinghamshire, particularly in those areas with thehighest percentage of child poverty (Ashfield and Mansfield). Community Safety Partnership activity is attributableto the reductions in those areas.Data table 1.13a indicates that the SNB appears to be working in the correct areas, although tackling child povertyhas not been a focus for the SNB thus far. The Strategic Analytical Unit of the SNB will be working with ChildPoverty leads to ensure a regular flow of data so that we can track changes over the next couple of years. Weanticipate little change in these areas in the short term.The Place Survey was carried out in December 2008, residents were asked to have their say about their local area.The surveys in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City were conducted by Ipsos MORI, on behalf of a partnershipmade up of the County Council, each of Nottinghamshire’s borough and district councils, and Nottingham City. Datafor the City was collated separately to the county data. 25,000 surveys were sent out to randomly selectedhouseholds across Nottinghamshire (10,000 in Nottingham City) giving residents the opportunity to have their say ona series of important themes, including community safety. A response rate of 43% was received.Perceptions of ASB in the county are very high and Nottinghamshire was one of the worst performing counties inEngland (22% of people in Nottinghamshire said in the 2008 Place Survey that ASB was a problem in their local area).A map of actual anti‐social behaviour (ASB) in 2009, as recorded by the police, is shown in Figure 1.13b. This does107 Nottinghamshire Police Authority 201071

not differentiate between ASB by adults or children, but shows that rowdy behaviour mainly takes place in towncentres and generally tracks the county picture of deprivation.Mansfield Partnership Against CrimeTackling crime and disorder is a priority that presents a number of major challenges. Although a lot of good workhas been carried out in recent years Mansfield continues to experience higher than average levels of violent crime,substance abuse, theft from vehicles, criminal damage and ASB. The rate of violent crime is a particularly significantchallenge with town centre violence and domestic violence rates being well above regional and national averages.Another key challenge is enviro‐crime. This includes fly‐tipping, littering and abandoned vehicles, all of which are asignificant blight on our environment if not tackled effectively.The key priorities for Mansfield Area Strategic Partnership and the Mansfield Partnership Against Crime (MPAC) arereducing the following domestic burglary, violent crime including domestic violence, theft from vehicles, criminaldamage, alcohol misuse, drug abuse and ASB.Figure 1.13.b Map of Nottinghamshire highlighting areas of greatest levels of anti‐social behaviour 2009[LSOA = Lower Super Output Area. This is an area with a population of about 1,500 people]72

The 2008 Place Survey also reveals interesting intelligence on adult perceptions of parents. Respondents were askedif they agreed or disagreed that parents take enough responsibility for the behaviour of their children – overall, only28% agreed and 52% disagreed. A breakdown of this by Lower Super Output Area (Figure 1.13c) shows the areaswhere people most disagreed, which include Cotgrave, Sutton‐in‐Ashfield, Hucknall, Balderton, Newark and Manton(Worksop).In a similarly phrased (but not identical) question in the 2006/07 Best Value User Satisfaction Survey (BVUSS), 64% ofrespondents saw parents not taking responsibility for their children as a ‘fairly’ or ‘very big’ problem, compared to37% who saw it as ‘not a very big’ problem or ‘no’ problem. This relative consistency of response between the2006/07 BVUSS and the 2008 Place Survey indicates that local adult perception of parenting is as negative as it istowards teenagers hanging around on the streets and ASB.Figure 1.13c73

1.14 How does fuel poverty affect children and families in poverty and what interventions are in place to tacklethis? Are interventions successful?Over 5 million households in the UK are unable to heat their homes to a standard required for health and comfort 108 .A household is in fuel poverty if, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime and cover other normal fuel costs,it would be required to spend more than 10% of its basic income on all household fuel use.Save the Children were commissioned to carry out research into the impact of fuel poverty on children and theyfound that 109 :• For infants, living in fuel poor homes is associated with a 30% greater risk of admission to hospital or primarycare facilities when other contributory factors have been accounted for.• For children, living in fuel poor homes is associated with a significantly greater risk of health problems,especially respiratory problems. Poorer weight gain and lower levels of adequate nutritional intake have alsobeen found – a “heat‐or‐eat” effect.• Adolescents living in fuel poor homes are at significantly greater risk for multiple mental health problemswhen other contributory factors have been accounted for.• Cost‐benefit analyses of the return on investment that could accrue from preventing fuel poverty amongstchildren and young people suggest that, for every £ spent on reducing fuel poverty, a return in NHS savingsof 12 pence can be expected from children’s health gains. When adults in the family are also included, thisincreases to 42 pence.• Fuel poverty is unlike most other forms of child poverty and should be accorded special status in policymaking and legislation concerning the young.The same report identified that fuel poverty interventions have primarily focused on older people and adults withdisabilities as key vulnerable groups. However, children are also acknowledged to be a target group forinterventions, but resources have not been prioritised for families on low incomes.Nottinghamshire is reportedly one of the worst hit areas in England for fuel poverty, according to research publishedfor the launch of FREE (Future of Rural Energy England) – a new energy efficiency initiative funded by energycompany Calor. The report found that Bassetlaw shows the highest proportion of fuel‐poor homes, as they use offmainsgas. These homes are harder to heat than other urbanised homes, and it is harder to implement another gasinfrastructure in some rural areas. With the rising cost of energy, many people find that the price of home heating oilin Nottinghamshire is too expensive 110 .The fuel poverty national indicator, NI 187, was until recently used to measure progress in tackling fuel povertythrough the improved energy efficiency of households inhabited by people claiming income based benefits. Theindicator measures the proportion of households on income related benefits for whom an energy assessment oftheir housing has been carried out, living in homes with low energy efficiency or high energy efficiency.The energy efficiency of a house can be measured using the Standard Assessment Procuredure (SAP) whichcalculates a number between 1‐100, low numbers generally indicate a house has low levels of insulation. A househas low energy efficiency if there is a SAP rating of less than 35 and a high energy efficiency SAP rating of 65 or more.The following table shows that fuel poverty is an issue in all districts. Districts report that insulating propertiesowned by them is easier than for those living in private rented and owner occupied homes. Data, however, on thenumber of households with children under the age of 20 is not available. Many districts carry out door to door visitsto identify households which could claim for affordable warmth schemes.108 National Energy Action http://www.nea.org.uk/109 Liddell C (2008) ‘The Impact of Fuel Poverty on Children ‐ Policy Briefing’ Save the Childrenhttp://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/docs/The_Impact_of_Fuel_Poverty_on_Children_Dec_08.pdf110 http://www.fuelfighter.co.uk/heating‐oil‐nottinghamshire.html74

Table 1.14a NI 187 ‐ Tackling Fuel Poverty – Survey Results 2009/10 Percentage of people receiving income basedbenefits living in homes with a low and high energy efficiency ratingASHFIELDPercentage of properties with low, mid or high SAP ratings (by tenure)RentingOwnerfromcouncilOther(unknown)PrivaterentedHousingAssociationTotalLower than 35 4.1% 3.9% 0.0% 8.3% 6.7% 4.7%35 ‐ 64 57.0% 62.5% 76.9% 63.3% 40.0% 59.0%Greater than 65 38.9% 33.6% 23.1% 28.3% 53.3% 36.3%BASSETLAWPercentage of properties with low, mid or high SAP ratings (by tenure)RentingOwnerfromcouncilOther(unknown)PrivaterentedHousingAssociationTotalLower than 35 5.1% 12.4% 20.0% 10.3% 0.0% 8.7%35 ‐ 64 50.3% 50.5% 60.0% 74.4% 54.5% 52.9%Greater than 65 44.6% 37.1% 20.0% 15.4% 45.5% 38.4%BROXTOWEPercentage of properties with low, mid or high SAP ratings (by tenure)RentingOwnerfromcouncilOther(unknown)PrivaterentedHousingAssociationTotalLower than 35 6.4% 6.1% 33.3% 7.7% 8.7% 6.7%35 ‐ 64 57.7% 55.4% 66.7% 65.4% 60.9% 58.0%Greater than 65 35.9% 38.5% 0.0% 26.9% 30.4% 35.2%GEDLINGPercentage of properties with low, mid or high SAP ratings (by tenure)RentingOwnerfromcouncilOther(unknown)PrivaterentedHousingAssociationTotalLower than 35 6.2% 9.3% 0.0% 12.2% 8.0% 7.8%35 ‐ 64 62.3% 46.5% 42.9% 54.9% 41.3% 55.3%Greater than 65 31.5% 44.2% 57.1% 32.9% 50.7% 36.9%Total(Weighted)Total(Weighted)Total(Weighted)Total(Weighted)MANSFIELDPercentage of properties with low, mid or high SAP ratings (by tenure)RentingOwnerfromcouncilOther(unknown)PrivaterentedHousingAssociationTotal(Weighted)TotalLower than 35 3.0% 14.1% 0.0% 7.1% 6.3% 8.4% 7.4%35 ‐ 64 54.2% 53.1% 57.1% 69.0% 59.4% 55.6% 57.3%Greater than 65 42.8% 32.8% 42.9% 23.8% 34.4% 36.0% 35.3%NEWARK & SHERWOODPercentage of properties with low, mid or high SAP ratings (by tenure)RentingOwnerfromcouncilOther(unknown)PrivaterentedHousingAssociationTotalLower than 35 4.4% 3.1% 11.1% 24.1% 10.9% 6.7%35 ‐ 64 54.4% 54.9% 44.4% 53.7% 47.8% 53.7%Greater than 65 41.3% 42.0% 44.4% 22.2% 41.3% 39.6%Total(Weighted)RUSHCLIFFEUnweightedCases used: 499below SAP 35: 9.22%above SAP 65: 32.26%Weighted75

Local Initiatives are available to prevent fuel poverty. Some examples include:In Ashfield, 5% of people receiving income based benefits live in homes with low energy efficiency ratings, whilst36% live in homes with high energy efficiency ratings.In terms of fuel poverty and thermal comfort, Ashfield District Council (ADC) has this year completed four phases ofworks comprising 72 properties to a works value in excess of £307,000. The 'core' works they carry out are gascentral heating installation and replacement, solid fuel conversions, double glazed windows and doors and minorassociated works. In addition, they have plans for further works to 78 properties which should be completed by thesummer and a desire for even more, subject to the availability of funding. Customer satisfaction surveys have beenreturned for the early phases and a number of complimentary letters have been received. ADC also has other alliedprojects in the early stages of development including:‐a) CERT scheme ‐ in partnership with British Gas and their subsidiary Hillserve Insulation, providing part‐funding forloft and cavity wall insulation, draught‐proofing, benefit health check, tariff advice and charity referrals, all as part oftheir 'Here to Help' package. This has been targeted towards wards of highest perceived need for the measures,starting in Jacksdale and rolled out now to Selston, Underwood and Woodhouse and their rural surrounds. Figureshave not yet filtered through, but it was hoped that 81 measures would have been completed by the end ofNovember 2010.b) Warm Front ‐ 46 vulnerable clients have been identified and are being assisted on this Government sponsoredscheme, with ADC providing 'top‐up' funding over and above the government's financial input. The works they offerdo overlap with ADC's thermal comfort work and the CERT scheme to an extent. However, it does ensure that peoplehave various options for assistance rather than none at all.ADC is also planning a programme of Empty Homes Regeneration to 'recycle' or regenerate homes which have beenempty for a considerable period (over three years), for a variety of reasons. This will be partly in partnership with anexternal agency and involves the acquisition and refurbishment of properties, which will then be available for rentvia Ashfield Homes Ltd;ADC also provides general energy efficiency advice with information on grant assistance available and through otheragencies and partners.In Bassetlaw, The Decent Homes Programme includes schemes to incorporate modernisation programmes totenants’ properties that help energy efficiency e.g. new windows.A number of the rural wards e.g. Tuxford and Trent, Welbeck, Sturton, Clayworth, Ranskill and Sutton have asignificant number of properties without access to mains gas.Gedling Borough Council operates two grant streams available to private owner occupiers – Renovation Grant andHome Repair Assistance Grant. Renovation Grant provides enough to bring property up to Decent Homes Standard,which includes criteria on thermal comfort – so could be used for double glazing, new doors, upgraded heating etc.These are means tested, so only available to people on low incomes. People are also directed to Warm Front grantsif they are eligible (includes being on a qualifying benefit, such as IS or JSA), so officers will help them apply for this,which funds loft and cavity wall insulation.A private company called Green Energy Doctor is carrying out door‐to‐door surveys in Gedling, with theendorsement of Gedling Borough Council. They will carry out home energy survey for free and recommendimprovements. If a household is eligible for Warm Front, they will help them apply. If not, they have an affordable“able‐to‐pay” price for loft and cavity wall insulation that is subsidised by Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT)funding levied from energy companies. Green Energy Doctor has been working in various areas, including particularlydeprived areas with high child poverty and fuel poverty (e.g. Newstead Village), but not limited to these areas. Astake‐up tends to be higher in less deprived areas, they have to balance the two to generate sufficient income andorders to maintain a cost‐effective supply chain.76

Newark and Sherwood District Council has a team of three staff in the Council’s Energy Agency that provideinformation and advice on grants and discounts so that families with children can take full advantage of what isavailable.The Council has strong ties with local children’s centres and schools, which gives the opportunity to promote energysaving information and energy advice, whilst distributing energy saving products at events and group meetings.A pilot project targeting vulnerable adults aged 18 to 59 years, called First Contact signposting scheme, enables thecouncil to identify and help families with young children by voluntary and statutory services completing a simplechecklist highlighting the help that is needed. A referral is sent to the organisation that can provide the service. Thisproject helps identify those families affected by fuel poverty and is instrumental in proving advice on incomemaximisation and warmth.Newark and Sherwood Warmstreets is a home insulation scheme to help home owners and tenants in privatelyrented property by providing free or discounted grants for cavity wall and loft insulation, to enable them cut theirfuel bills, save money and reduce the effects of climate change. The scheme is a partnership between the Council’sEnergy Agency, Apex Carbon Solutions (Warmstreets) and British Gas. It brings together funding for any residentswishing to improve their home with modern insulation standards and especially residents who need help becausethey live in cold damp homes, or find it hard to keep their home affordably warm. An area based approach is used toensure that all households, especially families in fuel poverty, are reached. The surveyor will first leave a letter ofintroduction to the scheme and then a few days later will visit them ‐ if the householder is out, a card is left withcontact details ensuring that every house is contacted.An Energy Schemes booklet is produced on a regular basis, which contains detailed lists of all the schemes and usefultelephone numbers and website addresses. This can be requested as a hard copy and can be downloaded from theNewark and Sherwood District Council website. A free phone number is available for all energy enquiries.Newark and Sherwood District Council is an active partner in the Nottinghamshire Affordable Warmth Group and islooking at using MOSAIC (a marketing tool designed by Experian) to target households likely to benefit from homeinsulation. Their primary target will be those households in receipt of benefits. However, many of these are inprivate rented accommodation and there is little or no incentive for landlords to pay for home insulation.Rushcliffe District Council has developed an Affordable Warmth Strategy, which co‐ordinates a range of activitiesand joint initiatives. They have a dedicated Energy Efficiency Officer in place. Through local and regionalpartnerships, the Council is able to offer grants and assistance to those in most need, including:• Energy advice and assistance – this sub‐regional partnership has helped thousands of householders to improvetheir home energy efficiency• Warm Front grants – providing heating and insulation• Warm Front top up grants – offering an addition £1,500 for whole house heating• Energy efficiency grants – covering 50% of the cost of new heating and insulation for homeowners• Tenants assistance grants – up to £1,000 for tenants on low incomes• Landlord grants – to improve thermal comfort and meet decent homes standards (landlords must accept Councilnominated tenants)o Letters were sent to 3,000 benefit recipients in October/November 2009 informing of Warm Frontgrantso National Indicator (NI) 187 energy surveys where sent out in January 2009 and January 2010 to aorandom sample of 2,500 receiving benefits. This will be repeated again in January 2011In 2010, 130 people asked for more information on improving energy efficiency in their homes ‐ detailsof grants and discounts were sent to them in FebruaryResults showed that:• Warm Front grants worth £489,073 were received by 401 people in 2008‐9, and 302 people in 2009‐10• Boiler grants to replace old boilers worth around £100,000 have been provided for people on benefits during2009‐1077

• Four BISF houses (British prefabricated house with poor levels of energy efficiency and vulnerable residents) inEast Leake were externally clad• Six mobile homes in Radcliffe and one in Gamston were externally clad through a Warm Front pilot project,several more are due to be completed• Several other mobile homes have had the energy efficiency improved through replacement of window, newroofs with insulation and heating• There is now a waiting list for all grants• We will now have to refer people to the social fund and Eon Caring Energy Fund for help with heating andinsulation1.15 Are there examples of community action within child poverty hot spot wards?Some interventions benefit from a ‘Big Society’ approach, as can be evidenced in the following example.Manton Community Alliance (MCA) is a Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder (NMP) in Bassetlaw one of 35 inthe UK funded by Government for seven years. The aim of Neighbourhood Management in Manton is to explorenew ways of working at a neighbourhood level so that:1. Local services are better, more efficient and relevant to the locality2. Local people influence what is going on in their communityThree equal stakeholder groups own MCA, namely:• Residents• All service providers• Elected representativesMCA independence is critical as it enables it to act as an honest broker able to promote collaboration driven by acommon goal. A constituted Board governs MCA.Some key achievements after three years:• Arguably one of the first neighbourhood policing agreements in UK signed in March 2004. Because of this, localpeople, through a local multi‐agency group, now help to set local policing priorities.• One in three local people (population of Manton is 6,500) engaged. Partners recognise that their relationshipand local knowledge is greatly improved because of this work.• Participatory budgeting now runs for two years, where local people take the decision as to how to spend localpublic money. In 2008, 13% of the population involved in this activity.• Local people, working through the partners of MCA, secured £350,000 for development of a local park.• Neighbourhood Management Team of 2007 award to MCAIn 2008/09 money was invested into:• £12,800 Ryton Park and New Manton Primary schools to develop play areas on both sites, this in turn attracted afurther £12,800 into the schools• £3,500 Worksop Christian Centre activities for teenagers• £5,000 Manton Club activities for teenagers• £1,600 Studio Dance activities for teenagers• £6,450 Nottinghamshire Police regarding controlling drug abuse• £16,400 ASB Unit and Manton Motor project to reduce vehicle nuisance• £3,280 Local Safer Neighbourhood Group (led by A1 Housing) to help reduce anti‐social behaviour• £1,300 Centre for Sport and Learning to help reduce anti‐social behaviour.78

Mansfield District CouncilMansfield was in receipt of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding for the past few years. During this time the followingprojects have taken place;• The conversion of a West Titchfield Resource Centre into a Children’s Centre ‐ this was done in partnership withthe local community.• Big Lunches and activities for children and young people have taken place on Bellamy Road.• Creation of the Bellamy Adventure Club on Oaktree and Bellamy estates.• ‘Buddies’ was created by Bull Farm Neighbourhood Management Team. Buddies can provide grants to localgroups.• Barrow Hill Walk ‐ co‐location centre on Oaktree Lane• Northfield Neighbourhood Management Team have created a youth club, ‘SODA’ ( a group for parents andcarers with children who have disabilities)• Oaktree lane Neighbourhood Management Team have created a youth club• Neighbourhood Renewal Fund has provided the funding for the Extended Services Programme in Mansfield ‐ thisis a project based on increasing the awareness and participation in activities for children and young people.• Participatory Budgeting (PB) ‐ Mansfield was one of the original pilot areas for PB. Prior to this, all of the NRFareas had a locally delegated pot of funds.• There has been the creation of neighbourhood wardens in the neediest areas.• In education, NRF has paid for a research project, focussing on the transition phase from primary school tosecondary school. Another project was centred on providing extra training for teachers and teaching assistants,with the hope that it will impact on the low attainment levels.79

Appendix Two: Employment and SkillsPoverty in childhood can cause poverty in the future. For example, children in poverty are less likely to achievehigher level skills and qualifications, which are critical to enter the workforce and progress in work, as well as tothrive in other areas of life. Unemployment is often strongly linked to unemployment in previous generations,meaning children living in low income or unemployed families are considered to be most at risk of struggling to findwork in later life 111 . This is particularly the case in areas with high concentrations of unemployed or low incomefamilies, where the problem can be seen as affecting the local community rather than individual families.Until very recently, unemployment in Nottinghamshire has been very low and employment rates reached recordlevels, although levels of unemployment and skills performance have caused concern in some areas. In 2008, therecession began to impact upon the local economy and employment, with substantial numbers of job lossesreported. In Nottinghamshire, finance, retailing, construction and manufacturing have been the most affected.Whilst the length and depth of the recession remains uncertain, it will clearly impact upon the county’s economy inthe longer term.We know from previous recessions that falls in economic output have a longer‐term impact on employment.Unemployment is likely to rise for many months before companies have enough confidence to start recruiting again.It is thought that it will take several years before a sustained recovery in employment levels takes place.Although Nottinghamshire’s economy has become more diverse and innovative, some areas of the county have lowskills, low innovation, and low wages. There are significant concentrations of unemployment in several areas of thecounty caused by limiting long‐term illness. Some highly qualified Nottinghamshire residents have to accept jobswhich require lower level knowledge and skills.Nottinghamshire businesses are concerned about attitude and basic skills, such as literacy, numeracy andcommunication. Flexibility and adaptability are increasingly required and we need to ensure that people are betterenabled to help themselves. The public sector is also a significant source of jobs in the county and it is likely that wewill see far less investment in public services in the future. This has significant implications for future planning.It is likely that we will need to prioritise creation of long‐term jobs. Development of knowledge intensive sectors willbe important to make the local economy more adaptable and resilient. This is particularly necessary in areas such asAshfield and Mansfield, which were both in the top 10 least resilient places in the country according to a 2010 studyby Experian 112 . Possible action includes encouraging businesses to start‐up and grow, promoting innovation andattracting inward investment. Science, environmental/sustainable technologies and tourism/hospitality/leisuresectors are growing, but are not yet at a level to replace jobs lost in more traditional areas. We want to be in aposition where the first class history, heritage and culture of the county can be exploited in a positive but sustainableway by, for example, developing excellent visitor destinations and organising major sporting and cultural events.The county’s diverse historic environment, its countryside, towns and landmarks help support local economies byenhancing the county’s reputation. Regeneration work is taking place in major urban areas, market towns, districtcentres and strategic employment sites around the county 113 .2.1 What does employment look like locally? Who works? In what kinds of jobs e.g. short term, part time, lowpaid?Where are the jobs located?At the time of the previous Nottinghamshire Economic Assessment in October 2009, there were 470,600 jobs in thecounty. 25% of these were in and around Nottingham City. Most jobs were concentrated in urban areas, withsmaller concentrations along major roads. The lowest numbers of jobs were in the Worksop & Retford Travel toWork Areas (TTWA), and there is a concentration of jobs around Worksop 114 . The economic assessment was111 Blanded J & Gibbons S (2006) The perspective of poverty across generations: a view from two British cohorts. Joseph Rowntree Foundation112 ‘Understanding Resilience – background information – East Midlands September 2010. Experian Ltd 2010113 Preceding section taken from: Nottinghamshire Sustainable Community Strategy 20010‐2020http://www.nottinghamshirepartnership.org.uk/index/sustainable‐community‐strategy/114 Headline Economic Assessment 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council80

updated in late 2010 and identified that in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire there were around 463,000 jobs, whichare largely concentrated in and around the main urban areas, and there is an above average dependence upon thepublic sector and manufacturing 115 . At the time of writing this needs assessment, it was too late to updateinformation with the new economic assessment, although some key points have been included in later sections.The public sector is the largest employer in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham (30.2% of all jobs), but its structurevaries across the county. Manufacturing (11.5% of all jobs) and retail & distribution (16% of all jobs) are moreimportant in the north of the county, and the south has higher concentrations of professional services jobs. The localeconomy is diverse, but has high levels of employment in some at risk sectors, e.g. retail & distribution, construction,manufacturing and the public sector. There were 11.2% of all jobs held by people who are self employed, which islower than the regional and England averages 116 . Further detail is available in the Economic Assessment 2009, andsubsequently 2010, although it is important to note that data includes Nottingham City. The Economic Assessmentscan be found at http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspxFigure 2.1a Access to employment in Nottinghamshire 117115 Headline Economic Assessment 2010 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council116 Headline Economic Assessment 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council117 The Condition of Nottinghamshire 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council. This map measures access to employment in terms of the totalnumber of jobs available to individuals and in terms of the 'degree of impedimence' of actually trying to access these jobs by public transport ‐in other words, travel times by public transport from origins to destinations are weighted in the index on which the map is based, with longertravelling times being given less weighting in the overall index than shorter times.81

Nearly four fifths (77.9%) of Nottinghamshire’s labour supply are economically active, 1.4% above the nationalaverage (Table 2.1b). Of the working age group (16‐64) in Nottinghamshire, 73% work full‐time and 27% work parttime(Table 2.1c). Out of men in the county, 90.1% work full‐time and 9.9% work part‐time; women have asignificantly higher proportion of part‐time work ‐ 54.6% work full‐time and 45.3% work part‐time. The breakdownof the workforce in the county can be seen in the following tables:Table 2.1b Nottinghamshire’s labour supply who are economically active 118 (March 2010)Nottinghamshire East Midlands Great BritainAll people 77.9% 77.4% 76.5%Males 83.5% 83.3% 82.7%Females 72.4% 71.5% 70.3%Source: Office for National Statistics, Annual Population Survey, 2010Table 2.1c Nottinghamshire’s labour supply by employment status (March 2010)Nottinghamshirenumber %All people ‐ Aged 16 ‐ 64 : All people 268100 100.0%All people ‐ Aged 16 ‐ 64 : Part‐time 72300 27.0%All people ‐ Aged 16 ‐ 64 : Full‐time 195700 73.0%Males ‐ Aged 16 ‐ 64 : All people 138900 100.0%Males ‐ Aged 16 ‐ 64 : Full‐time 125100 90.1%Males ‐ Aged 16 ‐ 64 : Part‐time 13800 9.9%Females – Aged 16 ‐ 64 : All people 129200 100.0%Females – Aged 16 ‐ 64 : Full‐time 70600 54.6%Females – Aged 16 ‐ 64 : Part‐time 58500 45.3%Source: Office for National Statistics, Annual Population Survey, 2010Table 2.1d The workforce in Nottinghamshire (March 2010)Nottinghamshire EastMidlandsGreatBritain1: Managers and senior officials 14.9% 15.9% 15.7%2: Professional occupations 12.4% 12.2% 13.7%3: Associate professional & technical13.3% 12.5% 14.7%occupations4: Administrative and secretarial occupations 10.0% 10.2% 11.2%5: Skilled trades occupations 11.8% 11.4% 10.4%6: Personal service occupations 10.1% 8.8% 8.7%7: Sales and customer service occupations 8.1% 7.3% 7.4%8: Process, plant and machine operatives 7.7% 8.6% 6.6%9: Elementary occupations 11.6% 13.0% 11.1%Source: Office for National Statistics, Annual Population Survey, 2010118 As Annual Population Survey estimates are based on samples, they are subject to sampling variability. This means that if another sample forthe same period were drawn, a different estimate might be produced. In general, the larger the number of people in a sample, the smaller thevariation between estimates. Estimates for smaller areas such as local authorities are therefore less reliable than those for larger areas such asregions.82

Table 2.1e Employment and economic activity data by district (April 2009 – March 2010)VariableEnglandEastMidlandsNottsAshfieldBassetlawBroxtoweGedlingMansfieldNewark &SherwoodRushcliffeEconomic activity rate‐ aged 16‐64 (%)Economic activity rate‐ aged 16‐19 (%)Employment rate ‐aged 16‐64 (%)% in employmentworking full‐time ‐aged 16‐64% in employmentworking part‐time ‐aged 16‐6476.6 77.4 77.9 75.7 74.8 82.6 80.2 71.6 79.3 80.649.9 51.4 54.6 47.2 60.6 70.3 67.8 22.4 68.8 46.170.5 71.6 72.4 71.4 70.1 74.7 73.9 64.9 75.8 75.574.3 73.9 73.0 76.3 67.4 68.7 74.2 80.0 72.4 73.625.5 26.0 27.0 23.7 32.6 31.3 25.8 20.0 27.6 26.4Source: Office for National Statistics, 2010Table 2.1e shows that the (16‐64 year old) economic activity rate 119 is highest in Broxtowe (82.6%) and lowest inMansfield (71.6%). The employment rate (16‐64) is highest in the conurbation areas of Rushcliffe (75.5%), Broxtowe(74.7%) and Gedling (73.9%), as well as Newark & Sherwood (75.8%), while it is again lowest in Mansfield (64.9%).Table 2.1f and Figure 2.1g show the trends in 16‐64 year old employment in Nottinghamshire since 2004. The slightlyreduced rate in the county mirrors the national and regional trend, though Broxtowe has seen an increase of nearly2%, and Gedling has also risen by almost 1%. Mansfield (‐4.4%) and Bassetlaw (‐3.5%) have seen the steepest drop inemployment rates during the time period. As the announced public sector cuts are made in due course, employmentrates in the county will probably dip – as of 2008, nearly one in three jobs in Nottinghamshire (31.9%) were in thepublic sector 120 , with the highest proportion in Rushcliffe (41%).Table 2.1f Employment rates (age 16‐64) 2004 ‐ 2010AreaApr'04‐Mar '05Apr'05‐Mar '06Apr'06‐Mar '07Apr'07‐Mar '08Apr'08‐Mar '09Apr'09‐Mar '10Ashfield 73.6 70.0 71.0 69.4 72.2 71.4Bassetlaw 73.6 73.3 70.6 74.5 71.2 70.1Broxtowe 72.8 74.1 69.0 73.2 71.8 74.7Gedling 73.1 74.6 77.6 74.0 76.1 73.9Mansfield 69.3 64.0 65.8 73.3 74.0 64.9Newark and Sherwood 75.6 79.8 74.1 74.9 73.4 75.8Rushcliffe 76.8 75.2 79.1 73.7 78.8 75.5Nottinghamshire 73.6 73.1 72.5 73.3 73.9 72.4East Midlands 73.7 74.5 74.2 73.6 73.1 71.6England 72.9 72.7 72.6 72.7 72.1 70.5Source: Office for National Statistics, 2010119 A person is economically active if they are either employed or unemployed in a particular period ‐ usually the survey reference week.Economically active people supply, or want to supply, their labour to produce goods and services within the production boundary, defined bythe UN System of National Accounts. Therefore, economic activity is on the supply side of the labour market framework.120 Office for National Statistics, 200883

Figure 2.1g Change in 16‐64 employment 2004‐2010Change in 16 - 64 employment, 2004-201075.074.016 - 64 Employment rate73.072.071.070.069.0Nottinghamshire East Midlands England68.0Apr '04-Mar '05 Apr '05-Mar '06 Apr '06-Mar '07 Apr '07-Mar '08 Apr '08-Mar '09 Apr '09-Mar '10Source: Office for National Statistics, 2010It is unfortunate that unemployment data for young people aged 18‐25 was not identified separately in this needsassessment as the Employment and Skills Board which covers Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City has highlightedthis group as a target group as unemployment levels are rising. The Employment and Skills Board have highlightedthat unemployment levels amongst this age group have increased by appropriately a third since 2007. Unemployedparents and in particular single parents in this age group are therefore even more of a concern.Mansfield district has 38,000 jobs (NOMIS). The district is home to a diverse range of businesses and sectors ofemployment, including many national and international companies. The largest sector of employment forMansfield's resident working population is manufacturing and construction, with 9,019 jobs. The remainingworkforce is employed in a variety of sectors, providing a balanced economy. There are a high percentage ofunskilled jobs in the district – 29.3% are manual occupations compared to 18.2% nationally.The employment rate of disabled working age residents of the county is highest in the boroughs of Rushcliffe (41%),Broxtowe and Gedling (both 37%), and lowest in Ashfield (27%). Four of Nottinghamshire’s seven boroughs/districtshave a higher rate than the national average, though the county average is two and a half percentage points belowthe national average.Table 2.1h Employment rate of disabled working age residents (March 2010)District % National Rank Notts RankRushcliffe 40.98% 132 1Broxtowe 37.08% 177 2Gedling 36.84% 179 3Bassetlaw 35.71% 191 4Newark & Sherwood 33.33% 229 5Mansfield 32% 255 6Ashfield 27.08% 307 7Nottinghamshire 31.15% n/a n/aGreat Britain 33.6% n/a n/aSource: Office of National Statistics (Nomis), 2010Figure 2.1i shows "all ages" unemployment at a ward level across the county, based on the claimant count for JobSeekers Allowance. The data relates to September 2010, the latest available, and shows the same pattern as generaldeprivation ‐ with the highest unemployment rates generally to the west of the county. Ravensdale and PortlandWards in Mansfield have the highest unemployment rates, 7.9% and 6.4% respectively. Killisick Ward in Gedling alsohas a rate of 6.4%, and Worksop South East in Bassetlaw has a rate of 5.5%. At a district level, Mansfield has thehighest level of unemployment with a rate of 3.8%. This is followed by Ashfield (3.6%) and Gedling (3.0%). Bycomparison, the county has a rate of 2.9%, the East Midlands is 3.3% and the UK is 3.6%.84

Figure 2.1iSource: Nottinghamshire County Council, 201085

2.2 What is being done to support employment? What enables families to work locally? Where are the jobslocated? What about childcare? What about transport? What type of training is provided locally?In addition to Jobcentre Plus adviser support throughout the Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) customer’s journey, thefollowing offers are available to help people into work:• Apprenticeships – open to anyone living in England, over 16 and not in full‐time education• Disability Services:• Access to Work assists disabled people, who are in paid employment or with a job or a work trial,to start by providing practical support with overcoming work related obstacles from disability.• Residential training provides a unique service to unemployed disabled adults aged 18 and abovewhose needs are not met through any other government funded programmes.• Work Choice supports disabled people who have more complex needs, primarily those who arelikely to need more intensive specialised support to find employment or to retain their positionwhen they have entered work.• Work Clubs – a nationwide initiative introduced to help unemployed customers into work before theybecome eligible for the Work Programme by developing a network of local venues where unemployedpeople can meet, share contacts and ideas and support each other through the job seeking process.• Work Together ‐ aims to help unemployed customers improve their chances of securing work by increasingtheir take‐up of volunteering as a means of preserving or enhancing their skills and motivation.• Work Trials ‐ a trial period in an actual job. It can last up to 30 working days, during which time thecustomer will remain on benefits.• Basic Skills Training ‐ the programme is available to all Jobcentre Plus customers who are 18 years old andover and who have a literacy, numeracy or language/ESOL need at Level 1 or below in one or moredisciplines.• Soft Skills Employability ‐ Helping Hands in the county and JobMAETS in the city. Helping Hands supportscustomer who are in contact with secondary mental health services. Long term holistic support is deliveredin a variety of settings where they feel comfortable. JobMAETS aims to improve the employability and skillsof unemployed and economically inactive people to enable them to gain, retain and progress intosustainable employment.• Improving Jobsearch training supports JSA customers of six months duration, lone parents,disabled customers and carers.• Getting Ready for Working supports lone parents, disabled customers and carers.• CV preparation training is delivered by several providers across Nottinghamshire, dependent uponthe client group and geographic location of the customer.• Occupational training ‐ delivered by several providers across Nottinghamshire in areas such asadministration/office, bar/hotel/food/beauty, care, health, construction, contact centre, etc. The aim is toprovide pre‐employment training which better equips customers to work in the relevant occupations.• Flexible New Deal ‐ provides intensive, tailored support to customers out of work for more than 12 months.• Group Jobsearch Sessions – gives information to non‐professional customers within ten working days oftheir new jobseeker interview about modern job search techniques/tools, advice on sources of informationand signposting to further on‐line support.• Adviser 1‐2‐1 Coaching ‐ customers attending these sessions will have asked to receive this additional helpfollowing voluntary attendance at a group Jobsearch session.• Work Focused Training Response to Redundancy ‐ provides customers with access to work focused trainingaimed at delivering skills needed by local employers.• JSA Self‐Employment Offer (available to the end of 2010/11 operational year) ‐ eligibility is for JSAcustomers of six months or more duration.• Work‐focused training ‐ the training prepares customers for real employment opportunities within the locallabour market.Jobcentre Plus operates outreach sessions in 22 targeted children’s centres within Nottinghamshire (see figure 2.2a).Furthermore, three centres have access to Derbyshire Jobcentre Plus outreach services, because of their boundarywith Derbyshire. Jobcentre Plus offers weekly, fortnightly or monthly sessions depending on the level of need within86

the children’s centre locality. Services are targeted to centres where the proportion of families who have childrenunder the age of four who are experiencing unemployment are greatest. Most outreach sessions take place inAshfield; the map below, however, highlights significant gaps in provision in Mansfield, as well as some gaps inGedling and Bassetlaw. The gaps identified in Mansfield requires urgent consideration.Figure 2.2a Jobcentre Plus Outreach Provision through Children Centres in Nottinghamshire (December 2010).87

Jobcentre Plus are also working with families who have multiple complex needs and are piloting work in Mansfieldand Ashfield through close work with the Family Intervention Project.Nottinghamshire County Council runs a successful back to work programme called ‘Making the Connection’, whichworks with employers to secure sustained employment for the county’s residents. The project has very strongrelationships with major employers in the county (i.e. Laing O’Rourke, Tesco) and provides a free recruitment serviceto these employers in return for guaranteed interviews for candidates that Making the Connection puts forward.The project builds skills and training programmes with the employers that ensure that candidates meet theirrequired skills needs through a training ‘gateway’. Making the Connection has supported over 500 people intoemployment over the past two years, with similar numbers achieving enhanced skills and employability.In addition, the County Council part‐funds the Wheels to Work scheme, which helps unemployed people inpredominantly rural parts of the county to identify transport solutions which help them to access work. Thisincludes loans of mopeds and subsidised access to public transport. The scheme has very strong success rates,reporting nearly 90% sustained job outcomes.The Star Alliance transport scheme has also been supported and funded by the County Council. This encouragesprivate bus operators to operate new routes connecting more rural communities to employment opportunities,particularly where there are larger concentrations of jobs (i.e. the M1 corridor).The Adult Community Learning Service offers:• Family literacy, language and numeracy programmes, aimed at parents/carers without any or a current Level 2qualification in literacy or numeracy• a range of courses, often delivered in children’s centres, that allow parents to grow in confidence and gain newskills e.g. paediatric first aid, first aid, food safety, learning champion training, volunteer training• a range of community based courses that build self‐confidence and social capital.Nottinghamshire County Council has part‐funded the regional Family Employment Initiative 121 (FEI), which is one ofthe Coalfield Regeneration Trust’s flagship programmes for tackling unemployment in deprived communities. Ittakes a ‘whole family’ approach, providing personalised and holistic support to individuals and their families to helpovercome barriers to employment.The FEI can provide ‘one to one’ support and help find suitable training and employment. Working with parents,they can develop realistic personal plans that will assist people to get a job, and be better off.Recent evaluation of the national programme identified that over a quarter of clients engaged entered employmentfrom April 2008 to December 2009. 65% of clients felt that it was not likely or not at all likely that they would havefound a similar job without this support.Evaluation also identified that there was a social return on investment with clients, as the programme generatedsignificant social benefits. The evaluation estimated the social value arising from six ‘social benefit’ factors:• Distance travelled towards employment for those clients not yet in work• Increased earnings for those clients who have entered employment• Increased future earnings of clients as a result of enhanced qualifications• Improved health outcomes• Increased use of community centres• Reduced rates of reoffending.Based on FEI expenditure, the social return on investment identified was 19.2. This means that FEI generated £19 ofbenefit for every £1 of public expenditure 122 .121 http://www.coalfields‐regen.org.uk/familyemploymentinitiative/default.asp122 Ekosgen (2010) Evaluation of the Family Employment Initiative: Executive Summary ‐ A report to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust March201088

Additionally, there are activities being run in districts. For example, Gedling Borough Council and the Gedling LocalStrategic Partnership deliver targeted activity in priority wards around local employment e.g. jobs fairs, training forskills development, access to information etc. The council is also working closely with Jobcentre Plus and Making theConnection 123 to capitalise on large commercial developments in order to secure local jobs for their residents.Gedling Borough Council’s new Economic Development function is liaising with Business Link to provide targetedsupport (1‐2‐1 advice, seminars, training) to established and pre/new start businesses. The council is also workingon a number of initiatives to help promote local business and improve opportunities for trading (promotionalwebsites, events and forums). It is liaising with local businesses in the district centres to identify activity to increasevitality of those centres. Activity includes the establishment of local business forums, town centre events, a shopfront grant scheme and professional retail training.Ashfield Worklessness Group – as most of the interventions carried out by Ashfield District Council’s regenerationteam are aimed at increasing the demand side of the employment equation and partner organisations work onvarious aspects of the supply side, a worklessness group has been created to bring together all interested parties toensure a coordinated and collaborative approach to the unemployment agenda. The meetings of this group arealways very well attended and the following interventions are a sample of the activities that are included in thecollective delivery. This group is also likely to play a key role in how the work programme is delivered within thedistrict. The following list is not exhaustive, but gives a good flavour of the sort of activity being delivered in thedistrict.• Making the Connection – a project that meets the needs of actual or potential employers with appropriatelytrained individuals from the target group. A common ‘tool’ used by Making the Connection are EmploymentGateways. The training needs of the individuals looking for work are normally met by local further educationproviders• “Family Works” – a recent Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) initiative to identify small geographical areasof significant employment deprivation and work with resident families to improve their economic position. TheCoxmoor Estate in the Kirkby East Ward was identified as such an area and Jobcentre Plus, having only recentlystarted work on the project, have already achieved their first job outcome.• Family Employment Initiative – targeted at the Coxmoor and Leamington Estates, a Coalfields Regeneration Trust(CRT) funded operative works with members of the target group, ultimately aiming to help them gainemployment. As the target audience overlaps that of the Family Works initiative, the coordinating role of theworklessness group played a vital role in allowing the projects to complement each other.• Jobs Fair for February 2011 – an event is currently being arranged to take place at the Festival Hall in Kirkby‐in‐Ashfield, with the aim of bringing together potential employers with people looking for work. Other providerswill be on hand to provide advice if needed, but the main aim will be to secure sustainable employment for theclient group.• Employment opportunities arising from inward investment or business growth – where a large employer ismoving into the district, the new Morrison’s store in Kirkby‐in‐Ashfield for example, the members of the groupwill work together to make sure that local individuals are given fair access to the resulting jobs.In addition, Ashfield Homes Ltd will be examining how tenants can be signposted to tackling unemployment schemesas part of their employment/ financial inclusion strategy, which is currently in development.123http://www.makingtheconnection.org.uk/ Making the Connection is a recruitment and skills solution service that works withemployers and communities across Nottinghamshire. They link local workforce to businesses and encourage staff development andprogression. They also manage training, events and recruitment activities to make sure that local people benefit from inward investment andemployment opportunities.89

Rushcliffe Borough Council does not have an economic development function and support for employment isprovided through its business partnership. However, there are Sure Start Centres operating across Rushcliffe, locatedin target wards for child poverty, which offer additional support for parents to access employment.In addition, the Friary provides a crèche for service users and those in temporary accommodation in Rushcliffe to beable to access the advice sessions (this is currently part funded by the Primary Care Trust). It operates threemornings per week.The Rushcliffe Community Partnership supports the Rushcliffe Business Partnership by holding networking eventsfor Rushcliffe businesses and also organises an annual network event that was attended by 120 Rushcliffe businessesin November. The Rushcliffe Community Partnership also supported the Business Partnership with a scheme toprovide security measures for small businesses during the current economic downturn. This has engaged manybusinesses across Rushcliffe and makes them more resilient, so that they are able to provide local employmentopportunities.The Borough is currently working on one regeneration project. They have worked with the East MidlandsDevelopment Agency (EMDA), Cotgrave Town Council, the County Council and the Homes and Communities Agencyon a master plan for Cotgrave town centre and the redevelopment of the colliery site. They are looking at fourinterlinked elements: the town centre, the colliery site, housing, and the socio and economic impact.Newark and Sherwood District Council operates a business support programme to offer financial assistance to startupor expanding businesses, working with their partners, Business Link and Nottinghamshire Business Venture. Theyhave targeted disadvantaged neighbourhoods, working with housing colleagues, to help facilitate local unemployedpeople onto Employment Gateway schemes, organised by ‘Making the Connection’. This offers direct support topeople who need help with interview techniques, job applications etc, making direct links between employerslooking to recruit and local unemployed people. Success rates have been good locally.The Council also works to promote the area to prospective inward investors who will create jobs. As the area is nowa Growth Point, the Council has a clear objective to maximise investment and jobs for the area. Area‐specificregeneration is taking place, such as Potterdyke redevelopment in Newark and Sherwood Energy Village in Ollerton.The Council maintains land and commercial property databases to help support commercial investors seeking newpremises. An enquiry handling service is delivered around this too. They work with local schools, colleges andtraining providers, as well as the Apprenticeship Service, to encourage interest and support among local employersand individuals in local training opportunities.In Bassetlaw, the Sustainable Community Strategy contains the long‐term vision for the area and is deliveredthrough the Bassetlaw Local Strategy Partnership. The Strategy aligns with regional priorities. Increased economicprosperity, regeneration, increased employment and economic activity are all key priorities. The Strategy identifiesa number of specific projects aimed at achieving these objectives.Bassetlaw’s Children Centres play an active role in working to combat child poverty and increase parentalemployment. They work with families with children under five years of age and in Bassetlaw there are ninedesignated areas, including a rural team that covers the North East of Bassetlaw. Children’s Centres are located inareas of greatest need as can be seen in figure 2.2a.Children Centre Outreach Teams operate out of the Retford children’s centres and they deliver services to theoutlying villages towards the South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire borders.Some of the services are delivered in partnership such as the Primary Care Trust. The children’s centres have twomain targets on child poverty.1. To reduce the percentage of 0‐4 year olds living in workless households2. To increase the percentage of eligible families benefiting from the childcare element of Working Tax Credits90

Working with Jobcentre PlusThe children’s centres want to break down the cycle of deprivation in families, as reducing child poverty will improvethe life chances of children. Being in employment provides income for the family and the centres work withJobcentre Plus to provide signposting services and advice. The centres are prioritised on need for weeklyattendance, including Harworth and Bircotes, Manton, West Bassetlaw and Prospect, Kilton Hill. Other centres arevisited monthly or quarterly.The centres have to identify the families that could benefit from the services available to support families. There are5,690 families in Bassetlaw and centres have to be proactive in bringing families in. Some such as Prospect havebeen successful.Support and AdviceThe centres work with Bassetlaw CAB and partly fund benefit advice and debt counselling services. Currently peopleare losing their jobs and often present themselves as coping with the situation, but it is only when the workers knowthe individuals that they learn about the true situation.The centres have a Nottinghamshire Unemployed Advice Worker who works with families on a one‐to‐one basis inconfidence. People can tell the worker what they are really earning and not just their declared income, as they arefearful of losing benefit and be unable to manage.The centre has employed community involvement workers who can also bring families to use the services of thecentres. The community involvement worker can help people access volunteering opportunities.Parent Zone is a drop in session for young parents with information on benefits and training available. Working withNorth Notts College and Connexions, the centres have also provided opportunities for young mothers (in 2010, 12mothers), to have taster learning sessions to encourage them to go on to further education. The mothers are givenchildcare to allow them to attend. The centres try to keep them engaged and in the system.North Nottinghamshire CollegeThe children’s centres sit under North Notts College, which is unique in the UK. The college has an improvementplan with the children’s centres and has a good track record on informal training, and moving people on to thecollege. There is community learning from the college and there are success stories. Someone who attended thecake decorating course now runs their own business.Adult EducationInformal training such as crafts is provided as a first step for people.Formal training includes child development, play, baby massage and a range of adult education courses. Earlyintervention is important and the centres start antenatally with baby brain development, speech and language. Thisis key for the child to be able to learn as it grows up.Bassetlaw Primary Care Trust (PCT) funds Bookstart which provides books for children. The PCT also provides healtheducation including weaning, smoking cessation and cook and eat. Some have good co‐operatives which sourcefood locally.Incredible Years is a formal programme to support parents.Basic Skills Level 2 in Literacy and Numeracy is available and has been particularly successful at West Bassetlaw.The centres want to track parents into college and an information sharing agreement is being drawn up so that thecentre can ensure that the parents complete the courses that they signed up for. Some parents fall out as theycannot cope or become pregnant. There are learning mentors, the chaplain and support workers can help them stayin learning. Accurate data will identify those who have not completed the course and the children’s centre canfollow up.91

Mansfield has a working population (16‐64) of 64,100 people; 31,800 males and 32,300 females. Out of the 64,100people within Mansfield 47,000 are economically active, and 3,900 are actively unemployed. 14,900 people areeconomically inactive and do not want employment.• The number of employment opportunities in the past two years has decreased in Mansfield, construction andother skilled trades have taken a big hit due to lack of demand. The recession has caused consumers to be morecautious with their money and many people facing redundancy have found that their skills are not relative to thejobs available. There currently seems to be a high demand for security and care jobs in the Mansfield area andthis has resulted in many people coming out of skilled trades and requiring further training to enter back intoemployment.• Mansfield still has some residual Working Neighbourhoods Fund (WNF) monies available, so far this money, andthe Neighbourhood Renewal Fund before it, were used to develop the Getting into Work Team, which works inpartnership with other service providers in the Mansfield area to deliver one on one support to clients to helpthem overcome barriers into employment. They offer job search support, CV writing, free training including andvarious NVQs. WNF has also provided funding to community groups that offer support to the harder to reachclients and has also given funding to the YMCA to give specific support to young and homeless people living inthe Mansfield area. All of the services provided are part of the Mansfield Multi Agency Employment Team(MAET’s). This is a network which is supported by Mansfield District Council ‐ the purpose of MAET’s is todevelop a strategy to tackle unemployment across the Mansfield area and includes partners such as West NottsCollege, Jobcentre Plus, Ingeus, Working Links, Learning Skills Council, Tribal, Care Training, the WNF fundedprojects etc.• Getting into Work and the smaller community led projects such as Nottinghamshire Community & VoluntaryService and Mansfield Woodhouse Community Development Group receive direct referrals from Jobcentre Plusloan parent advisors. Mansfield Woodhouse Community Development Group and Ladybrook NeighbourhoodManagement Group in the past have delivered outreach job search sessions from Sure Start venues in order toengage parents. They have also worked with extended service providers to deliver events which promote theirservices to parents.• Nottinghamshire Business Ventures are available to support people interested in self employment and alsohave some funding available. They can offer grants up to £3000 which need to be match funded.Other funded programmes:• Getting into work• Future Jobs programme• Making the connection• MAETS groupFounded in 1970, and based in Rushcliffe, South Nottinghamshire College is one of the largest education andtraining providers in Nottinghamshire. It provides further education within Rushcliffe, including adult learning. TheGovernment tables have ranked the college 6 th out of 194 further education colleges across the whole country forLevel 3 A‐Level/ national diploma courses. They are the only further education college in the East Midlands to makeit into the top ten.South Nottinghamshire College has superb facilities in both Ruddington Fields Business Park and in the Old MarketSquare in Nottingham City Centre.Their employer dedicated unit, branded SNC Training, has one of the biggest funding agency contracts in the EastMidlands, over £8 million available to fund employer responsive programmes where appropriate.South Nottinghamshire College Training has recently been successful in achieving the Training Quality Standard(TQS) kite‐mark. The award is national recognition for organisations delivering high quality training to employers.92

Community Outreach Project in Ravensdale and Coxmoor ‘Family Works’ led by Jobcentre PlusBackground to the project ‐ There is a clear link between social housing tenancy and dependence on working agebenefits. The Hills review 124 points to decreases in the proportion of social tenant householders in paid employmentover a 25 year period, and the concentration of workless households in particular neighbourhoods whereunemployment and poverty are part of a cycle of disadvantage.Jobcentre Plus put in place extended partnership working arrangements in three localities from October 2009, towork with social housing providers and other partners to improve services on some of the most difficult socialhousing estates. Teams of advisers based in community locations are working with a range of partners to deliver aholistic, multi‐agency approach to address the issues that prevent people looking for, finding and staying in work.The White Paper, ‘Building Britain’s Recovery: Achieving Full Employment’ announced an extension to thiscommunity based approach. This is being taken forward as “Community Outreach” in a further ten localities, withNottinghamshire being one of these.The specific aim of this project is to work with social landlords and other partners to engage with residents who maynot otherwise access the employment focused services available to them. Working collaboratively with theirpartners the teams will offer a joined up approach to address the varied barriers that prevent people from seekingwork – including challenging the attitudes that have led to generational unemployment being accepted in manyhouseholds.Community outreach teams employ a wide range of delivery mechanisms and partnership arrangements. Servicesand methods will often be determined by local circumstances.Teams and advisers give maximum flexibility to act for the customer’s best interest in progressing towards work.However, advisers must adhere to Jobcentre Plus guidelines and customers must still comply with any relevantbenefit regulations.Why Coxmoor and Ravensdale? The project is targeted at areas with high levels of social housing andunemployment. The Coxmoor estate in Kirkby in Ashfield and Ravensdale Ward in Mansfield were identified assuitable neighbourhoods to work.The overall approach:• There is a small focused team of Jobcentre Plus advisers working directly in the community• They aim to address the entrenched problems of inter‐generational unemployment prevalent in some estates /neighbourhoods.• They deliver a proactive, wrap around, multi agency service using an integrated case‐management approachIt is important to note that they will not be delivering mainstream Jobcentre Plus services, for example mandatoryinterviews, taking claims to benefit and signing customers. The focus is on helping people into work and or trainingand to work with existing provision and support. As such, the projects working name is FamilyWorks.Who are the customers? The Project is voluntary and has a family focus. Whilst the aim is to work with those whoare disengaged from mainstream services they do not exclude those who are already receiving support. All those onprimary benefit are eligible for the project – Job Seekers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit/Employment SupportAllowance and Income Support. They can also work with those in work, for example families on low incomes or whoare in short term work. The key is the area that they live.What will the project offer? Flexibility is key; the advisers will have scope to see people as much or as little as isneeded. There are no pre‐determined interview times or interview requirements. Customers will be caseloaded andadvisers will work with them over a long period of time. The programme is voluntary and will be based in the localcommunities. They will also offer to see customers in their own home.124 Hills John (2007) “Ends and Means: The Future Roles of Social Housing in England”93

There is also a flexible fund to help address barriers which mainstream provision is unable cover.Central to the approach will be working with organisations and partners who already work in the area including thetwo main social housing landlords Ashfield Homes and Mansfield District Council.The project is now working on both estates. The team working on Coxmoor are based in Coxmoor Communitycentre and the Ravensdale team are currently working from several locations within the Community.2.3 How many households are reliant on out of work benefits?Nottingham and Nottinghamshire have a slightly higher proportion of unemployed than the UK, but as withemployment and economic activity, this average masks considerable differences between communities. Somegroups are disproportionately affected by unemployment. Young people and those looking for unskilled occupationsboth represent a third of current job seekers. Young people remain the largest group of unemployed 125 .Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) is often used as an indicator of unemployment, as it is the most timely and detailedsource. In Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, there were more than 29,500 people claiming JSA in March 2010 126 . Itis estimated that a further 4% (or 14,400) 127 were unemployed but not claiming JSA.Overall, the unemployment rate in March 2010 for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire was only slightly above theEngland average (4.4% compared to 4.2%). Nottingham Travel to Work Area (TTWA) has the highest rate at 4.6%(influenced largely by unemployment in Nottingham City which is 6.2%), followed closely by Mansfield TTWA. At adistrict level, Rushcliffe has the lowest unemployment rate (2.2%). Nottingham and Mansfield have pockets of veryhigh unemployment, around 10% in some wards including Ravensdale in Mansfield 128 . Male and femaleunemployment rates are similar to the UK rates, at 6.1% and 2.3% respectively. Over the past year, unemploymentin Nottingham and Nottinghamshire has followed a similar pattern to the UK, although at a slightly higher level.Figure 2.3a: Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Claimant count unemployment 2009‐10Source: NOMIS, 2010In Nottinghamshire in 2008, there were 20,605 children living in households reliant in Income Support or Job SeekersAllowance, of which 15,205 in lone parent households 129 . When this data is broken down, districts are ranked as125 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economicassessment/home.aspx126 ONS Claimant Count, March 2010, from NOMIS127 Annual Population Survey, 2009128 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economicassessment/home.aspx129 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm94

follows: Ashfield (4,305), Mansfield (3,970), Bassetlaw (3,240), Newark & Sherwood (3,100), Gedling (2,530),Broxtowe (2,230) and Rushcliffe (1,230) 130 .The 2010 Economic Assessment 131 identified that a slightly greater proportion of the working age population inNottingham and Nottinghamshire claim Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit than seennationally; Mansfield Travel To Work Area has the highest proportion within Nottinghamshire.Table 2.3b shows that nationally nearly one in five children is in an out of work family and more than two in five arein a low income or out of work family. In Nottinghamshire (including the City), the percentages are higher with 21.2%of children in an out of work family and 46.9% in an out of work or low income family. The highest numbers ofchildren are in the Nottingham Travel to Work Areas (TTWAs) although the Mansfield TTWA has a slightly higherpercentage. Levels are slightly lower in Worksop and Retford TTWA but only the part of the Lincoln TTWA inNottinghamshire has levels below the national and regional averages on both measures.Table 2.3b Children living in low income or out of work families, August 2008 132Children inArealow incomeor out ofworkfamiliesChildrenin out ofworkfamilies% 0‐18 year oldsin low income orout of workfamilies% 0‐18 yearolds in outof workfamiliesMansfield TTWA 31,380 13,890 47.9 21.2Nottingham TTWA 78,215 35,220 46.6 21.0Worksop & Retford TTWA 11,120 4,750 42.8 18.3Lincoln TTWA in Notts 5,195 2,180 40.2 16.9Nottm and Notts 107,980 48,750 46.9 21.2East Midlands 419,000 174,000 42.2 17.5England 5,008,000 2,296,000 42.9 19.7Source: HM Revenue and Customs, August 2008; 2008/09Note: Travel to Work Area data is calculated from Super Output Areas at August 2008. Other data is average data for the year 2008/09.Figure 2.3c shows the distribution of children in low income or out of work families at a ward level. The mostnoticeable concentration of children is in the Nottingham TTWA particularly in Nottingham City’s inner city areas, itsouter estates and parts of Ashfield and Gedling districts adjacent to the City. There is a secondary concentration insome of the Derbyshire districts which fall into the Nottingham TTWA, but generally the rest of the TTWA hasrelatively low percentages of children in these families.130 HMSO NI 116 data http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal‐tax‐credits/child_poverty.htm131 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economicassessment/home.aspx132 Headline Economic Assessment 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council95

Figure 2.3c Percentage of Children in Out of Work or Low Income Households within Travel to Work Areas, August2008.Source: HM Revenue and Customs, August 2008The Mansfield TTWA shows a slightly different pattern with fewer wards having the very high percentages seen inthe Nottingham TTWA, but a more consistent pattern of relatively high levels across the TTWA, with few wardsshowing low levels of children in low income families. The highest concentrations are in Mansfield, Kirkby in Ashfieldand Shirebrook.The highest percentages in the Worksop and Retford TTWA are to the west of the area, in and around Worksop.Generally the percentages are lower in the rest of the area, although even those wards in the lowest category on themap have more than 20% of their children in low income or out of work families. A similar pattern can be seen in thepart of the Lincoln TTWA in Nottinghamshire, where the main concentration is in and around Newark.96

The areas with the largest concentrations of these children represent the greatest challenge, as they have thegreatest danger of falling into a cycle of inter‐generational unemployment. Unemployment has increased since thisdata was produced and so the number of children in poverty is likely to have increased.Child poverty is linked to the availability of jobs and, as such, is unlikely to fall until the economic recovery is underway and the job market improves. Changes to the benefits system may improve matters if they encourage people toreturn to work, but again this is dependent on improvements in the job market. There is also a danger that ifchanges to the benefits system do not result in people finding jobs, they may increase child poverty as out of workfamilies see a reduction in their incomes. This would not be seen in the Tax Credit figures but could have a real effecton poverty in terms of income.2.4 What factors directly influence families’ abilities to enter and sustain well paid employment in the short andlonger term? What are the barriers to employment?A slightly greater proportion of the working age population of Nottinghamshire and Nottingham claim benefits dueto a medical condition than the national average (6.6% compared to 5.6% across England). Across Nottingham andNottinghamshire, of those claiming due to a medical condition, there is a greater proportion of people claimingIncapacity Benefit (IB)/Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) because they are affected by musculoskeletal diseasesthan seen nationally (19% compared to 17% in England). At a more local level, this is particularly seen in theMansfield, Worksop & Retford and Lincoln (Notts part) TTWAs 133 .There are variations within the Nottingham TTWA, with Broxtowe having above average of claimants withmusculoskeletal diseases; Nottingham City having a greater proportion of claimants affected by mental andbehavioural disorders than seen nationally (48% compared to 43%); and Rushcliffe having above averageproportions with diseases of the nervous system (11% compared to 7% nationally) 134 .Poor health continues to present a barrier to work. Going forward there are two significant aspects to this:• Those who have been claiming benefits for a long time but are no longer eligible may need re‐training asthey may have lost the skills required by employers; and• Those without the skills to access employment, particularly those in the older age groups, would benefitfrom training to make them more employable.The Employment and Skills Board have highlighted that Nottinghamshire continues to bear a high amount of longterm Incapacity Benefit and Employment & Support Allowance benefits, which are fairly concentrated in specificlocalities across the county. The number of adults reliant on Incapacity Benefit has not changed greatly since theintroduction of major welfare reform programmes established in 2006. The Board feels that by assessing IncapacityBenefit by locality and number of dependents, this would lead to cross prioritisation between family well being andemployment and skills support. They recommend that health and well being is promoted amongst this group andfocuses on issues such as respiratory illness, mental health and musculoskeletal conditions which are mostprevalent.Adult carers are more likely to suffer ill health than those without a caring responsibility and one in five carers havehad to give up work. This clearly impacts upon pension contributions and heightens the risk of poverty in later life.The 2001 Census identified that there were over 83,000 carers living in Nottinghamshire, fairly evenly spread acrossthe county, and that almost a third of these (26,000) were providing care for more than 20 hours per week. Indeed,over 17,800 provided unpaid care for 50 hours or more per week. In 2006/07, 985 18‐64 year old carers received acarer specific service, including breaks for the carer, and a further 600 received information and advice 135 .133 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economicassessment/home.aspx134 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economicassessment/home.aspx135 Nottinghamshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (Chapter 2), 200897

Ashfield had the largest number of people providing unpaid care (12,631) and Mansfield had the highest proportionof carers in the population (12% ‐ county average 11.25%; England average 10%). The lowest in both cases wasRushcliffe (10,666 and 10.3% respectively). Most carers in the county were in the 35‐49 age group (29%) or the 50‐59age group (28%).Evidence from the Adult Community Learning Service has identified that self‐confidence and, related to that,literacy/numeracy qualifications, are a substantial barrier for parents to access employment. The availability of freechildcare is also essential in engaging parents in learning activity, the cost and availability of childcare may well be abarrier to employment for some parents, in particular when childcare is not always available in the locations or atthe times that match employment opportunities.2.5 Are there jobs for parents in Nottinghamshire?The 2010 Economic Assessment identified that the level of notified job vacancies in Nottingham andNottinghamshire has increased, a high proportion of these are in lower skilled occupations. It is, however, unclear ifthese posts are being filled by parents. 25% of those in employment work part‐time compared to 23.7% nationally.Part‐time working is much more common among female workers than males. In 2008/09, 41.4% of female workersin Nottingham and Nottinghamshire were employed on a part‐time basis compared to 11.1% of male workers. Thepublic sector and retail are the sectors with the greatest number of part‐time workers; the rest of the service sectoralso has a high proportion in part‐time employment 136 .If it is accepted that parents require flexible working hours, then a comparison of unfilled vacancies by type (full‐timeor part‐time) may be useful. Table 2.5a shows vacancies notified to Nottinghamshire Jobcentre Plus for August 2010.One in five vacancies (20.5%) was for part‐time work and the rest were full‐time. Data is unfortunately not availableregarding the duration of jobs, for example term‐time only. By far the highest proportion of jobs on offer as ofAugust 2010 were in the banking, finance and insurance sector (70.1%) (Table 2.5b).Table 2.5a Vacancies in Nottinghamshire (Jobcentre Plus) (August 2010)Vacancy Type Notified Vacancies % of overallTotal 4805Full‐time 3818 79.5%Part‐time 987 20.5%Source: Jobcentre Plus, 2010Table 2.5b Vacancies in Nottinghamshire (Jobcentre Plus) by industry (August 2010)Industry Number %Agriculture and fishing 13 0.3%Energy and water 33 0.7%Manufacturing 148 3.1%Construction 141 2.9%Distribution, hotels and restaurants 492 10.2%Transport and communications 84 1.7%Banking, finance and insurance 3368 70.1%Public administration, education & health 416 8.7%Other services 110 2.3%Source: Jobcentre Plus, 2010Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council are entering into a Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)with Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council which will provide opportunities to develop the economy byco‐ordinating economic development activity and maximising their academic and commercial strengths. The LocalEnterprise Partnership will help to bring more jobs into Nottinghamshire. Bassetlaw is covered by two LEPs, theDerbyshire and Nottinghamshire LEP and also the LEP for the Sheffield City Region.136 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspx98

Local enterprise partnerships will have responsibility for encouraging enterprise, innovation and supporting keysectors. They will strategically commission and coordinate inward investment and trade activity as well as promotionand tourism. They will help develop a strategic employment and skills approach to provide employers with theworkforce they need. They will align and inform investment prioritisation in planning, housing, transportation anddigital infrastructure. Success will be judged by a thriving private sector and a transition to a low carbon economy 137 .Priorities will include:• Build on the area's reputation for internationally competitive science, manufacturing, engineering andcreative industries, driving better productivity and growth as we develop a low carbon economy.• Develop our distinctive cultural, sport and tourism offer to world class standards.• Share the benefits of our economic growth across our cities, towns and rural communities.• Meet employers' current and future skills demands through our highly rated and ambitious educationpartners• Secure investment in regeneration and infrastructure projects that stimulate private sector growth 138 .The Local Enterprise Partnership is also working to build on the visitor economy in Nottingham and Nottinghamshirewhich can be developed further to capitalise on business tourism through conferencing, and on leisure tourismthrough sporting events, local historic connections and cultural offerings.Mansfield District Council (MDC) supports local business and enterprises through:• Mainstream business support (Business Link/Enterprise Agency/Nottinghamshire Business Ventures/PrincesTrust)• Additional European Regional Development Fund (EDRF) funding, business link outreach support programmes• Local Enterprise Organisation in partnership with MDC, Ashfield District Council, Bolsover District Council,government funding develop enterprise disadvantages, support pre‐start/start‐up plus established businesses• MDC signposting / property discretionary grant and Business parks improvement grant.• Neighbourhood business incubation network and Mansfield I‐centre.2.6 Is there sufficient childcare and access to childcare to enable parents to access employment?Lack of childcare is recognised as a limiting factor in the employment of disadvantaged groups, such as lone parents.Formal childcare, for which the childcare element of Working Tax Credit can be claimed, covers:• Registered childminders – provide care for up to six children aged under‐eight in a domestic setting.Many childminders also provide care for older children before and after school and during schoolholidays• Full day care – provide full day care for children aged under eight and are usually, though notexclusively, provided by day nurseries• Pre‐schools – (also known as pre‐school playgroups) usually offer sessional daycare and sessions of freeentitlement to nursery education• Out of school care – (or clubs) usually available for school aged children, though many offer places fromthe age of three to give access to childcare for working parents.Nottinghamshire is currently updating its Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (CSA) which will be published in March2011. Initial findings indicate that:• 92% of parents are at least satisfied with their current childcare arrangements• 66% feel there is a good choice of childcare available locally• 63% of those using childcare are claiming child tax credits/working tax credit• Childcare costs for full daycare in Rushcliffe are the most expensive in the county• 12 nurseries in Nottinghamshire charge in excess of £200 for 50 hours of care per week• Typical costs of 50 hours of care with a childminder are £148.50 for a child under two and £139.25 for a childover two.137 http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20777&p=0138 http://www.dncc.co.uk/your‐chamber/4001/local‐enterprise‐partnerships99

Table 2.6a shows the number of childcare places at the time of the full Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 139 in 2008(2010 data will be available in March 2011).Table 2.6a Childcare places by district (2008)DistrictPopulation0‐14 yearsTotal childcareplacesChildren perplaceAshfield 19,442 2,378 8.2Bassetlaw 17,929 2,323 7.7Broxtowe 14,902 2,753 5.4Gedling 15,562 2,279 6.8Mansfield 16,723 1,930 8.7Newark & Sherwood 16,295 2,316 7.0Rushcliffe 17,206 3,270 5.3Total 118,059 17,249 6.8Source: Family Information Service, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2010NI 118 measures the take up of formal childcare by low income working families. In Nottinghamshire, this figure ison the increase (from 17% in 2006/07 to 18.9% in 2008/09) and above the national average (18% in 2008/09). Thisindicates that there is a positive increase in the numbers of poorer families benefiting from the childcare element ofthe Working Tax Credit.Nottinghamshire’s Childcare Sufficiency Assessment will work towards ensuring there is sufficient school‐agechildcare, via extended schools services, for children of lone parents required to look for work.NI 109 (Delivery of Sure Start Children’s Centres) measures the total number of Sure Start Children’s Centresdesignated as a percentage of the total number of centres required to reach all under‐fives in the local authorityarea. As of March 2010, Nottinghamshire’s score was 100% (i.e. the county has total coverage).The majority of childcare gaps are geographical and by childcare type – i.e. there are some areas in the county wherethe full range of childcare type is not available. Some rural areas do not have sufficient demand to make groupchildcare provision viable, so childminder provision is heavily relied upon. There are also age gaps, where provisionfor older children is not as accessible. In many communities, informal childcare is being provided by extended familyand friends, which can be considered as income gaps – anyone caring for a child in these instances should beencouraged to become registered, in order that parents can claim tax credits. Specific needs gaps also occur fordisabled children and these are addressed on a case by case basis. Full details of current gaps can be found in theChildcare Sufficiency Assessment 140 .139 The tri‐annual Childcare Sufficiency Assessment is produced by the County Council’s Family Information Service, which gives a detailedpicture of the supply of, and demand for, childcare across the county. It can be accessed at: www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/fis or by email:fis@nottscc.gov.uk140 www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/fis100

Figure 2.6b % Take up of 3 and 4 year old free entitlement childcare places Autumn Term 2009 by Children CentreCatchmentSource: Early Years & Childcare, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2010It is a condition of funding for providers of the free entitlement in Nottinghamshire to ensure that nursery places areoffered to disabled children and/or children with special educational needs (SEN) on the same basis as those withoutdisabilities. Provision for disabled children aged 14‐19 (or 0‐19 with complex health needs) is offered through theDisabled Children’s Access to Childcare (DCATCH) Project (part of the Aiming High Pathfinder). Families who aresupported by the project pay towards the cost of childcare at the local rate, with costs over and above this coveredby DCATCH funding (the average cost for a child in mainstream childcare is £3.50 per hour, but specialist providers101

for disabled children charge £15 ‐ £18 per hour). As of January 2010, 67 families had received help with theirchildcare needs.There are significant variations in childcare costs across the county (Table 2.6c). In areas of most disadvantage,childcare costs tend to be lowest at £3.00 per hour for childminders and £95.00 per week for day care in a nursery.However, in areas where there is little or no choice of childcare type, costs can be high (childminder £44.00 per dayor nursery £180 per week) 141 .Table 2.6c Childcare costs in Nottinghamshire 2010Childcare Type Highest cost (40 hrs/wk) Typical cost (40 hrs/wk)Day nursery £180.00 £140.53Childminder £220.00 £128.80Out of school club £184.00 £128.00Source: Family Information Service, Nottinghamshire County Council, 20102.7 What skills do parents and carers have for employment? Are people using their skills in their jobs? Are skillsbeing improved? What are the skills for parents/carers who are unemployed?Average qualification levels have increased across Nottinghamshire over the last decade, but on average remainbelow England averages. Qualifications remain an important determinant of whether an individual works or not,although this also depends upon the labour market. To the north of the county, many have found work despitehaving lower qualifications. Business surveys back up the suggestion that the skills and demand ‘balance’ is similarto the England average, but in Nottingham City there are concerns with qualifications and skills of the currentworkforce 142 .According to the National Employer Skill Survey 143 , there were 2,900 vacancies identified by employers inNottingham and 4,800 in Nottinghamshire in 2009. This equates to 1.6% and 1.7% of employment respectively and isin line with the national average. Employers identified only 13% of these vacancies as ‘hard‐to‐fill’ compared to 22%in England.Employers in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham identified only 8% and 11% respectively of vacancies as ‘skillsshortage vacancies’, compared to 16% in England. These are vacancies which are hard‐to‐fill 144 because of a lack ofcandidates with the right skills, qualifications or experience and are a useful indicator of whether the labour marketmatches employer demands. These figures suggest that skills available in the local labour market match employerrequirements fairly closely 145 .When asked to look at their current workforce, 17% of employers in Nottinghamshire identified that one or more oftheir staff were not fully proficient at their jobs. This is slightly below the England average (19%).On average, residents in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire have fewer qualifications than across England as a whole.28% of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire residents are qualified to at least Level 4 (equivalent to a first degree)compared with 31% nationally 146 .14.1% of the working age population in Nottinghamshire have no qualifications. This is a larger proportion thaneither the East Midlands (13.5%) or UK (13.4%). The areas with the greatest proportion of unqualified residents areNottingham City (17.4%), Mansfield (16.6%) and Bassetlaw (14.7%). 25.6% of people of working age inNottinghamshire are qualified to NVQ Level 4 or higher, compared with 25.5% in the region and 28.5% in the UK.141 Nottinghamshire JSNA September 2010142 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspx143 England‐wide survey of almost 80,000 employers.144 ‘Hard‐to‐fill’ vacancies can indicate supply constraints in the local workforce, either due to ‘tight’ labour market conditions because of highemployment or a lack of candidates with the right attributes.145 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspx146 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspx102

Locally, Rushcliffe has the highest proportion of people with NVQ4+ qualifications (44.3%) and Mansfield the lowest(15.3%) 147 .Figure 2.7a Qualifications of the Working Age Population by locality 148Source: Annual Population Survey, Jan 2007 – Dec 2007 via NOMISThe 2010 Economic Assessment identified a need to up‐skill the existing workforce with a focus on growth sectors,to raise productivity and average wages and to create entry level opportunities for those currently unemployed. Thisis because workers in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire earn less than the UK average, and a greater proportion ofNottingham and Nottinghamshire residents have no qualifications than is the case nationally 149 .The Employment and Skills Board has highlighted that there are differences in terms of skills and occupations whenlooking at it through a residency or workplace perspective. In terms of workplace assessment Nottinghamshire doeshave a higher than average level of higher skilled occupations; however by residency Nottinghamshire has around440,000 residents below NVQ2 level. Nottinghamshire also has below national average weekly earnings, with aquarter of all its job creation being those of an elementary level. The conclusion from this is that people travel intothe county from outside to occupy the higher skilled and higher paid jobs, as a trend. This then impacts on GrossValue Added (GVA), income levels and statistics covering the proportion of families earning below median levels.Family Learning provision in Nottinghamshire is well established and provided by Nottinghamshire County Councilalongside Adult Community Learning Services. Family learning offers a range of interventions for families andparents across the county. Statistics relating to the 2009‐2010 Family Learning provision are as follows:• 2,500 enrolments (1,990 learners)• 15% of enrolments had no qualifications• 6% were at Entry Level 1• 26% were at Level 1• 18% at Level 2• (22% did not supply prior level of attainment data)• 33% were not in paid employment• 25% were in part‐time employment• (32% did not give details of their employment status)• 57% came from the 150 most disadvantaged Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs)• 69% came from the 200 most disadvantaged LSOAs147 Headline Economic Assessment 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council148 Headline Economic Assessment 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council149 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspx103

• 83% came from the 300 most disadvantaged LSOAs• 87% came from the 350 most disadvantaged LSOAsThe following literacy/numeracy qualifications were gained on Family Learning Courses:• 22 Entry Level 3 Literacy/Numeracy qualifications• 102 Level 1 Literacy/Numeracy qualifications• 105 Level 2 Literacy/Numeracy qualificationsIn addition, Family Learning had 570 enrolments on Personal and Community Learning courses in children’s centres ‐the prior attainment and employment profiles were similar to those listed above.This data from Adult Community Learning’s Family Learning Programme shows that a mixture of parents and carersaccess a range of community courses, including those in children’s centres. Just over half of all parents and carerswho enrolled in family learning courses are from the 150 most disadvantaged LSOAs in Nottinghamshire, and 69% ofparents and carers came from the 200 most disadvantaged LSOAs.2.8 In terms of economic development. Where are our skills the weakest and where should we targetinterventions? Who is most at risk of low skills?There are adults and young people in the county with literacy, language and numeracy needs that prevent themfrom getting jobs, progressing at work, helping their children learn and being active in their local communities. Skillsfor Life, the national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills, was launched in 2001 with targets tohelp 1,500,000 adults to improve their skills by 2007, with a further 750,000 by 2010. In 2008/09, there were 5,006participants in the Skills for Life programme in the county. The highest numbers were resident in Mansfield (862),Ashfield (820), Newark & Sherwood (780) and Bassetlaw (764). Of those taking each level, 65% achieved LiteracyLevel 1, 62% achieved Literacy Level 2, 70% achieved Entry Level Numeracy and 69% achieved Level 1/2Numeracy 150 .The skills and qualifications profile of Nottinghamshire is moderate, ranking 35 th out of 53 sub‐regions 151 . Asidentified in the 2009 Economic Assessment, skills present a significant countywide challenge on a number of levels:• A proportion of working age residents have no skills, and the unskilled make up a large (and growing)proportion of the unemployed• Businesses are concerned about even the basics, including attitude• There is evidence that skills poverty is inter‐generational ‐ the large number of children in workless familiescould mean we are storing up problems for the future• All this may well be compounded by any 'ratchet effect' 152 of the recession• The differing needs of businesses, which are broadly bracketed as being linked to skills, emphasises theimportance of tackling this with business partners• Unemployment is closely related to skills. For some, there are greater barriers than skills alone, includingperceptions and aspirations. Although an issue in many parts of the county, for some an unwillingness totravel a distance to major employment centres may require a local focus• A coherent local focus to skills training will be required for each area, as the ability to travel can be asignificant barrier 153 .Residents in the Nottingham Travel To Work Area are the most qualified, with 32% qualified to degree level, but thismasks variations within the area from just under 25% in Nottingham City to 51% in Rushcliffe 154 .150 Nottinghamshire JSNA 2010 Nottinghamshire County Council151 The State of Nottinghamshire 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council152 Ratchet effect: the result when households adjust more easily to rising incomes than to falling incomes, as, for example, when theirconsumption drops by less than their income in a recession153 Headline Economic Assessment 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council154 Economic Assessment 2010 http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economicassessment/home.aspx104

Skills and Education in MansfieldEducational attainment in Mansfield is low. Figures reveal that 21.0% of the population have no qualificationscompared to 13.0% in the East Midlands region and 12.3% nationally. Of those that possess qualifications, 21.4%are qualified to NVQ Level 4 or above. This includes those with Higher National Diplomas, degrees orhigher/postgraduate degree level qualificationsThe Adult Community Learning Service has stated that parents and carers without literacy/numeracy qualificationsat Level 2 at are greatest risk of unemployment and low skills.The Adult Community Learning Service targets the Skills Funding Agency financial resources on the mostdisadvantaged LSOAs. They aim to recruit 55% of learners from the 150 most disadvantaged SOAs and 85% from the85% most disadvantaged SOAs.Family Learning funds are targeted at schools with an IDACI score 0.17 and above, as well as children’s centresserving the most disadvantaged areas.Participation of 17 year olds in education or training (NI 91) fell from 73.2% in 2006/07 to 72.3% in 2007/08, andsince 2004 has remained below regional (74% in 2007/08) and statistical neighbours (75.5% in 2007/08) and thenational average (78% in 2007/08) 155 .The percentage of young people in receipt of free school meals (FSM) at the age of 15 who attain Level 2qualifications by the age of 19 (NI 82) has increased from 40.2% in 2007/08 to 45.1% in 2008/09, though thiscompares unfavourably against statistical neighbours (48.7%) and the England average (56.8%). The percentage ofyoung people in receipt FSM at the age of 15 who attain Level 3 qualifications by the age of 19 (NI 81) increasedfrom 13% in 2007/08 to 16% in 2008/09, compared to the non‐FSM cohort of 46%. The gap (30.6%) is worse than theEngland average gap (24.6%).Young people from more deprived areas are significantly less likely to enter full‐time Higher Education (HE) thantheir counterparts in more affluent neighbourhoods. Only 15% of young people from unskilled backgrounds begin HEby the age of 21 compared with 79% of young people from a professional background 156 . Nevertheless, inNottinghamshire there has been considerable growth (+36%) in the number of Universities and Colleges AdmissionsService (UCAS) acceptances of young people from the 20% most deprived areas nationally over the last eight years(well in excess of the 18% estimated population increase), whereas the increase in UCAS acceptances in moreaffluent areas is below the associated population growth (Figure 2.8a). The proportion of young accepted applicantsfrom the 40% most deprived areas has also increased (+38%). These figures suggest that the HE participation gap hasnarrowed over time in the county between the least and most deprived (Figure 2.8b) 157 .155 A detailed examination of skills levels in the county is contained in the Learning & Skills Council’s 16‐19 Strategic Analysis forNottinghamshire at http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/EastMidlands/16‐19_Nottinghamshire_June_2009a.pdf156 Social Exclusion task Force 2007157 NI 106 measures young people from low income backgrounds progressing to HE. However, the most recent data is from 2007/08 (21% gap),worse than the national gap of 18%.105

Table 2.8a Percentage growth in the number of under‐20 year old accepted UCAS applications in Nottinghamshireby Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) Index45%40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%Category A&B areas (20% mostdeprived)Category C&D areas (20‐40%most deprived)Category E‐J areas (60% leastdeprived)‐5%‐10%Source: Michael Kerrigan (2010) Attainment, Post‐16 Progression and HE Participation Trends, Aim Higher NottinghamshireFigure 2.8b Change in the proportion of Nottinghamshire young applicants from 40% most deprived areasnationally21%20%19%18%17%16%Proportion of under 20 year old accepted applicants from 40%most deprived IMD areas nationallySource: Michael Kerrigan (2010) Attainment, Post‐16 Progression and HE Participation Trends, Aim Higher Nottinghamshire [Note:approximately 38% of 18 year olds reside in the 40% most deprived areas]NI 106 measures the gap between young people from low income backgrounds (measured by FSM eligibility)progressing to HE and those from non‐FSM backgrounds. Nottinghamshire’s 2007/08 (most recent data) score of21% was better than statistical neighbours (22.4%) but worse than the England average (18%).106

2.9 After leaving school which young people are most at risk of poverty and what do we need to do to reducethe risks? Which groups are least likely to be in education, training or employment?There are higher numbers of young people not in education, training or employment in Mansfield, Ashfield andBassetlaw. Teenage mothers and young people with learning difficulties and disabilities are over‐represented in Notin Education, Training or Employment (NEET) figures, as are looked after children/care leavers and young offenders.46% of 14‐18 year olds are confident about the job opportunities available in Nottinghamshire and 41% are not. Only23% of young people currently NEET are confident the job opportunities they want are available in the county 158 .There are variations in NEET levels across the county at district level and within that there are some specific ‘hotspot’ wards. When examining NEET levels at a district or ward level, it is best to use a residency only calculationrather than the national calculation, which excludes from the cohort those young people attending learning inFurther Education (FE) outside the district or local authority area. Table 2.9a gives a breakdown of NEET levels bydistrict using the residency only calculation and lists the identified ‘hot spot’ wards in those districts.Table 2.9a NEET levels by district and ‘hot spot’ wards (September 2010)District & NEET % ‘Hot Spot’ WardsAshfieldKirkby in Ashfield East ‐ 8.3%NEET – 5.1%Sutton in Ashfield West – 7.0%Sutton in Ashfield Central – 6.0%Sutton in Ashfield East – 5.6%BassetlawNEET – 5.3%BroxtoweNEET – 3.7%GedlingNEET – 4.1%MansfieldNEET – 5.9%Newark & SherwoodNEET – 4.5%RushcliffeNEET – 1.7%NottinghamshireNEET – 4.5%Source: Connexions Client Information System, 2010Worksop North West – 7.2%Worksop South East – 11.1%East Retford East – 7.4%Eastwood South – 8.6%Netherfield & Colwick – 7.5%Phoenix – 9.7%Ravensdale – 10.8%Portland – 11.1%Oaktree – 6.0 %Forest Town East – 8.3%Magnus – 8.7%Devon – 9.6%Boughton – 10.5%On the basis of the data above, Mansfield, Ashfield and Bassetlaw have levels of NEET for 16‐18 year olds resident intheir area that are higher than the county average. Within some districts, there are wards where NEET levels aremuch higher than the county average.There are differences between the proportion of particular vulnerable groups of young people in NEET and thewhole 16‐18 cohort. Of particular concern are teenage mothers, young people with learning difficulties anddisabilities (LDD), care leavers, looked after children (LAC) and young people linked with the Youth Offending Service(YOS).Teenage mothers 16‐19 ‐ teenage pregnancy is a key factor influencing the likelihood of young people choosing orbeing able to take up opportunities in education, employment or training (EET). At the end of September 2010,158 Nottinghamshire JSNA 2010107

32.5% of teenage mothers aged 16‐19 in Nottinghamshire were in learning or work. This is the highest proportionever recorded in Nottinghamshire. Teenage mothers present a real concern, particularly as participation ratesdecline considerably between 16 and 19 for this group. Aligned to this is a very poor take up of the ‘Care to Learn’childcare grant in Nottinghamshire.Black and minority ethnic (BME) young people (16‐18) ‐ overall, 16‐18 year old BME young people inNottinghamshire are more likely to be in learning or work than the whole cohort, with 2.5% in NEET compared with4.5% of all 16‐18 year olds (Source: Connexions Client Information System, September 2010). Within this, some BMEgroups appear to do less well, most notably those of dual heritage. More work needs to be done to fully understandwhy this is the case.Young people with learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD) ‐ young people with LDD are another group who areover‐represented in NEET. Young people aged 16‐18 who were ‘School Action Plus’ in Year 11 are significantly overrepresented in NEET when compared to the whole cohort. This is a consistent trend. S139a Assessments 159 arecurrently undertaken to assist transition. However, this does not appear to be having the impact required and it isnot clear why. As of September 2010, the proportion of young people aged 16‐18 with LDD in learning or workstands at 84.2%, compared to 92.5% of the whole cohort.Looked after young people (LAC) and care leavers ‐ according to data collected by Social Care and Health for NI 148,71.2% of care leavers at age 19 were in EET during 2009‐2010 compared with 62.1% for England. As of September2010, 82.5% of LAC aged 16‐18 were in learning or work, compared to 79.5% at the same point in 2009. A newprotocol between Social Care and Nottinghamshire Futures (Connexions) has been agreed, including case reviews forLAC in NEET and better involvement in looked after reviews. Nottinghamshire Futures (Connexions) personaladvisors are working more closely with the virtual school, which enables earlier intervention to support those likelyto become NEET. However, there is still a gap to the whole 16‐18 cohort and ongoing work is required.Young people known to the Youth Offending Service (YOS) ‐ participation in EET data for 2009‐2010 provided bythe YOS for NI 45 (Young offenders’ engagement in suitable education, training or employment) indicates that 77.2%of young people who were supervised by the YOS were engaged in suitable education, employment or training at thepoint their order was closed. This is a combined figure which includes both pre‐16 young people in full‐timecompulsory education receiving 25+ hours per week and 16‐18 year olds in learning or work. For the 16‐18 year oldsalone, 73.6% of young people who were supervised by the YOS in 2009‐2010 were in EET at the point their case wasclosed.Whilst the methodology for arriving at this figure differs from the Connexions data for the whole cohort makingcomparisons impossible, it does show that there is still a significant proportion of this cohort not actively engaged infull time learning. However, the nature of the way in which the data is collected excludes those young people post‐16 who may be in part‐time learning or employment 160 .159 A S139a Assessment is an assessment required under the Learning & Skills Act 2000, to provide a comprehensive report of the supportneeded by a young person with learning difficulties or disabilities to ensure they are able to succeed in post‐16 education or training, or highereducation.160 Nottinghamshire JSNA 2010 Nottinghamshire County Council108

Figure 2.9b Access to Further Education in Nottinghamshire 2008 161161 The Condition of Nottinghamshire 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council109

Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was established to encourage disadvantaged young people to remain inlearning between the ages of 16 ‐ 18. If a family’s household income is less than £30,810, then a young person iseligible for a weekly sum of £10, £20 or £30 a week to help buy books, equipment or to support travel costs. EMA isdue to be discontinued and replaced with Learner Support Funds, which will be made available through schools,colleges and training providers to help students who most need it to continue in learning. It will be important toassess continued uptake of learning provision for disadvantaged students once EMA has ceased.Take up of EMA is a good indicator of whether disadvantaged young people are accessing learning through school,college or a learning provider. Figure 2.13c shows the numbers of young people accessing EMA across statisticalneighbours. (N.B. As these are actual numbers and not rates, comparisons cannot be made.)Figure 2.9c Educational Maintenance Allowance Take Up by Statistical Neighbours October 2010Source: EMA & Young People’s Learning Agency October 2010In Nottinghamshire nearly half of young people accessing EMA go to Further Education colleges, followed by schools,with a smaller proportion accessing private settings such as work based learning and apprenticeships.Graph 2.9d Educational Setting accessed by all Young People in Nottinghamshire using EMA (as of October 2010)Source: EMA & Young People’s Learning Agency October 2010Apprenticeships are also available for young people in Nottinghamshire. Data from the National ApprenticeshipService (NAS) shows that there were 2,051 16‐18 year olds in Nottinghamshire who started an apprenticeship in2010/11, with the greatest numbers from Ashfield.110

Table 2.9e 16‐18 year old apprenticeship starters in Nottinghamshire (July 2010) by district 162StartersAshfield 391Bassetlaw 285Broxtowe 244Gedling 333Mansfield 346Newark & Sherwood 253Rushcliffe 199Source: National Apprenticeship Service 2010Of young people on apprenticeships overall, 1,966 were female and 2,902 were male, as can be seen in Figure 2.9f.Figure 2.9f Gender breakdown of all young people accessing apprenticeships in Nottinghamshire by district(2010/11) 163Source: National Apprenticeships Service, October 2010When examining the sector in which young people take their apprenticeship, there is a notable gender difference,whereby young women are more likely to choose to work in health, public services and care, compared to youngmen who, on the whole, access construction and engineering apprenticeships. In some districts, no young peopleaccess apprenticeships in sectors including education and training, and arts and media. This may be due to youngpeople not choosing these sectors, or local apprenticeships in these sectors not being available.When looking at where young people choose to carry out their apprenticeship, the vast majority are in FurtherEducation colleges ‐ West Nottinghamshire College (1,932), followed by South Nottinghamshire College (844), NorthNottinghamshire College (707), Ashfield Comprehensive School (293), Nottinghamshire County Council (245),followed by schools and private training providers 164 .162 National Apprenticeship Service November 2008163 National Apprenticeship Service November 2008164 National Apprenticeship Service November 2008111

Figure 2.9g: All young people accessing apprenticeships in 2010/11 by sector, gender and district.When comparing the numbers of young people on apprenticeships across statistical neighbours, it is clear that allareas saw a decline in 2008‐09, which is reflective of the recession’s impact on work‐based learning providers.However, this has picked up again in 2009‐10. It is hard, however, to draw conclusions from comparable statisticalneighbours, as numbers have been used in the following graph rather than rates.Graph 2.9h Young People who started apprenticeships ‐ comparisons with statistical neighbours 2007‐20103500300025002000150010002007‐082008‐095002009‐100NottinghamshireDerbyshireStaffordshireLancashireCumbriaKentNorthamptonshireSource: National Apprenticeships Service 2010There is no evidence, however, to suggest that poorer young people are accessing apprenticeships.112

The Rushcliffe Community Partnership supported a scheme to help the Perkins Family Academy apprenticeshipprogramme, which was set up to support NEET young people and primary schools in the locality regarding nutritionprojects (schools have not been allocated as yet).The Rushcliffe Community Partnership also supported a ‘Wheels to Work’ scheme – an expansion of this service hasbeen supported by the Rushcliffe Local Strategic Partnership Executive Group.2.10 What does social mobility look like in Nottinghamshire ‐ where and how does it differ for areas of greatestdisadvantage and poverty?Social mobility is defined 165 as the movement of individuals, families or groups through a system of socialhierarchy or stratification. If such mobility involves a change in position, especially in occupation, but no change insocial class, it is called "horizontal mobility." An example would be a person who moves from a managerial positionin one company to a similar position in another. If, however, the move involves a change in social class, it is called"vertical mobility" and involves either "upward mobility" or "downward mobility." An industrial worker whobecomes a wealthy businessman moves upward in the class system; a landed aristocrat who loses everything in arevolution moves downward in the system.Most politicians, commentators and researchers agree that Britain is less mobile than other countries 166 . In March2010, the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development concluded that what people in Britain earn ismore closely linked to what their parents earned than in any other country they had data for 167 . It also found thatthere is a particularly large wage premium to growing up in a better educated family and a similar wage penaltyassociated with growing up in a less‐educated family.A report by the Institute for Social and Economic Research for the Sutton Trust suggests that education mobility ismuch lower in England than the rest of the world. Children’s exam results were more closely associated with theirparents’ results than in many other countries, but the attainment gap between children from graduate and nongraduateparents had begun to narrow.In a recent study 168 , Bristol University and the London Institute of Education analysed how a child's postcode waslinked to the number of primary schools that would admit them. Their study found that poor and rich families livewithin two miles of 12 primary schools on average. The poorest fifth of pupils are likely to be accepted by four localprimaries, while the richest fifth are likely to be admitted to at least five. The study also found that the poorestfamilies have less chance of getting their children into the highest performing primary in their neighbourhood. Whenthe poorest parents list the top school as their first preference, they stand an 80% chance of getting their childaccepted there. When the richest parents do so, they stand a 91% chance of getting their child admitted. This isbecause well‐off families tend to locate themselves close to top‐performing schools.Measuring social mobility is a challenge locally as a number of datasets are required to be analysed at an individuallevel. Data in 4.1 shows that average earnings in Nottinghamshire have been increasing from 2002 to 2009 for bothmale and female full‐time workers. This could indicate increasing social mobility, although additional data should beconsidered alongside to understand a better picture of social mobility in Nottinghamshire. For example, we knowfrom 2.1 that unemployment has been increasing for all groups between 2008 and 2010. On its own, this data doesnot indicate changes in social mobility and contradicts earnings data. It is hoped the Census 2011 will help identifysocial mobility locally.2.11 Do children and families in Nottinghamshire have high aspirations?The Leitch Review (2006) 169 found that “inequalities in aspiration by adults drive inequalities in attainment for theirchildren and can create a cycle of disadvantage that locks generations in persistent poverty. It perpetuates the165 Encyclopaedia Britannica166 From Trade Union Congress (TUC) paper (2010) on social mobility – http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/Social_Mobility.pdf167 http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_2649_34325_44566259_1_1_1_1,00.html168 From ‘The Guardian’, 29 October 2010. Report to be published at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/169 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/furthereducation/uploads/documents/2006‐12%20LeitchReview1.pdf113

number of young people unable to read, write and add up and who drop out of school at 16, spending teenage yearsnot in education, employment or training.” The review recommends that the “cycle needs to be broken by raising theaspirations of parents and children and standards in all schools.”Some studies also suggest that poverty itself leads to poverty of aspiration and may carry on for generations as aresult 170 .Building aspirations is likely to be achieved through:• Leadership by schools, a key route to raising aspirations of young people and breaking the cycle of deprivation• The strengthening of more positive role models for young people – through better parenting, peer groups andthe wider community, for example schools could actively promote and deliver adult education classes during theday• Greater choice of better paid jobs and housing (i.e. something to aspire to)• Engendering a value to learning and self worth in young people. Recognising different types of intelligence andhow they can be used in society ‐ more “enterprise education” starting in the primary sector.It is important to note that Family Learning does not take place in all Nottinghamshire schools; some schools still arenot engaging in Family Learning and are not permitting it to be delivered in their schools and/or want to charge forthe use of rooms. Improved partnership/shared understanding is required and a partnership approach to tacklingchild poverty may be an answer.In some Nottinghamshire communities, aspirations levels are very low amongst young people and their families and,as a consequence, too many young people under‐achieve at Key Stage 4, which impacts on their progression afterstatutory education is complete. Those young people, who have had poor experiences of learning in statutoryeducation and/or come from communities where learning has not been a high priority, are less likely to considerlearning as an option when they leave school.The 2009/10 Tellus 4 Survey 171 asked questions relating to the educational aspirations of pupils in Years 6, 8 and 10.44% of Year 6 pupils said they wanted to study beyond Year 11, and 25% wanted to get a job with training. 28% didnot know yet. Of Years 8 and 10, 62% wanted to do courses in a sixth form or college, 6% wanted an apprenticeshipand 12% wanted to get a job with or without training. 20% were not yet sure. Of those asked whether they wantedto go on to higher education in the future, 61% said ‘yes’, 12% ‘no’ and 27% did not know. All of these figures werebroadly in line with statistical neighbours and the national average.Results from the ICM survey 172 undertaken for the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) of 811 young peopleaged 11‐18 in Nottinghamshire indicate that seven in ten (69%) of those who are still in education expect to workfull‐time when they have completed all of their education (that includes school, college and university) (Figure2.11a). A small number (4%) expect that they will do an apprenticeship and 3% specify that they will get a job with‘on the job training’. A very small minority appear concerned about the job market saying they expect to beunemployed and looking for work (2%). One fifth of those still in education do not yet know what they will do.170 Shropshire and Middleton, cited in Bradshaw et al, Social Exclusion Unit, 2004171 Caution should be exercised when using Tellus 4 data. Although the Department for Children, Schools and Families regards the data asstatistically valid, it should be noted that only 21 schools in Nottinghamshire responded (488 primary pupils and 972 secondary pupils) to thesurvey. Nottinghamshire’s full Tellus 4 results can be accessed at http://www.Tellussurvey.org.uk/Reports/Report.aspx172 The full results of the ICM Government & Social Research Unit survey undertaken on behalf of the Nottinghamshire Children’s Trust can befound at: http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/consultation/notts_cc_young_people_s_survey_final.pdf114

Figure 2.11a What those in education expect to do after they have finished their educationOf those still in education, seven in ten expect to work full-timeonce they’ve completed their education.What those in education expect to do after they have completed their educationW ork full-time69%Get an apprenticeship4%Get a job, w ith 'on the jobtraining'3%W ork part-time2%B e unemployed andlooking for w ork2%B e self-employed1%Don't know19%Q14A. What do you think you will do, after you have completed all of your education(that includes school, college and university)?Base: All respondents in education (721)Source: ICM Government & Social Research Unit, 2010Those who are not currently in education were asked what they expect to be doing in 12 months and the results areshown in Figure 2.11b below. Over half (55%) expect to be working full‐time and 6% to be on an apprenticeship ortraining scheme. 8% are less optimistic and think they will be unemployed and looking for work. Aside from these,there are a quarter (23%) who do not know what they will be doing and 4% who say they will be unemployed andnot looking for work.Figure 2.11b What those not in education expect to be doing in 12 monthsOver half of those not currently in education expect to beworking full-time in 12 months’ timeWhat those not in education expect to be doing in 12 months’ timeWorking full-time55%Be unemployed andlooking for work8%Be on anapprenticeship/trainingschemeBe unemployed and notlooking for work4%6%Other8%Don't know23%Q14B. What do you think you will be doing in 12 months' time?Base: All respondents not in education (91)Source: ICM Government & Social Research Unit, 201013% of 14 to 18 year olds feel very confident about the job opportunities available in Nottinghamshire, while a third(33%) are fairly confident (Figure 2.11c). A quarter (25%) are not very confident, while 16% have no confidence at allthat the area can provide the job opportunities they want. One in ten (11%) do not know.Overall, just under half (46%) are confident about job opportunities. Social grade has a clear impact here withconfidence higher among As, Bs (both 55%) 173 and C1s (51%) than it is among Ds and Es (37%). Those who are not in173 Most market research projects classify the population into social grades – see Appendix 8 for details115

education, employment or training (NEET) are much less confident than their peers, with only a quarter (23%) feelingthe job opportunities they want are available in Nottinghamshire.Figure 2.11c Young people’s confidence about job opportunities in NottinghamshireJust under half are confident about the job opportunitiesNottinghamshire can provide. Two fifths are not confident.Confidence about job opportunitiesNET: Confident 46%Fairlyconfident,33%Not veryconfident,25%TotalAB46%55%51%44%37%C1C2DENotconfident atall, 16%Veryconfident,13%Don't know,11%SchoolFE/ 6th form collegeWork/OtherNEET48%45%56%23%Q17. Thinking about when you first start to look for a full-time job, how confident are youthat the job opportunities you want will be available in Nottinghamshire?Base: All 14 to 18 year olds (510)Source: ICM Government & Social Research Unit, 2010Bassetlaw Local Strategic Partnership Children’s GroupThis group works on the aspirations of young people in Bassetlaw to break the cycle of deprivation. Partnersincluding North Notts College encourage children to want to learn, as attainment in examinations will follow.Children and young people have to recognise that it is worth trying at school, which can be difficult if the family doesnot provide support (‘ideas above your station’) or the family does not work.The Adult Community Learning Service has identified that local parents have aspirations for their children. Theywant them to achieve more than they did and not have the negative educational experiences they had. This is notalways readily articulated due to a lack of confidence, which can come over as having a lack of aspiration or a lack ofinterest. Not engaging in learning activity is often about avoiding painful/difficult situations, not a lack of aspirationfor their children. The courses offered by the service receive positive feedback and there is evidence of increasedaspiration of the families that have engaged.The following quotes are from parents and carers who have accessed Family Learning in Nottinghamshire:“The course has given me confidence to go on to do other things and I’m keen to look at options that will help megain qualifications”.“I feel I’ve gained confidence from the course and want to do more learning.”“The course was excellent, as it helped me to learn what I could do to help support my child at home usinginexpensive materials. It also made me more aware of the assistance you can give your child, whilst at the same timeimproving your own skills e.g. questioning skills to help develop my child’s language and mathematical skills.”“Although I was very quiet and self‐conscious at the start of the Share course, I have found my own voice and becomemore self confident. I even gave a talk to the children about some ‘collectors’ toys I own, which I would have been toonervous to do a year ago. I now have more confidence, not only with the activities with the children, but with askingquestions and giving opinions, which I would not have done previously. I have also realised that although my opinionsmay be sometimes different to someone else’s, they are mine and important to me.”116

Sir Edmund Hillary School has a similar story to tell and this is what one learner had to say: "I left school with little inthe way of recognised qualifications and took a job that I was not particularly interested in to earn some money butknew this was not what I wanted to do.I'm not sure why, perhaps because my mum was a childminder, but my 'dream' was to work with children. Then anopportunity to do a SHARE course came up locally at Sir Edmund Hillary Primary School. This was great, because itwas local and because childcare was provided. Following the SHARE course I was able to take advantage of a rangeof other related courses.They gave me a massive amount of confidence and a desire to do more and more. I am so, sohappy doing a job that I love thanks to adult learning."Carrie is continuing to study and now works for Sir Edmund Hillary School as a teaching assistant. She has also beennominated for a national award as part of Adult Learners Week."Since participating in the Family Social & Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) course I feel that I have grown inconfidence. The course enabled me to develop skills to discuss issues and develop strategies to help solve theseproblems. It was nice being able to be given the opportunity to share problems that I had been experiencing withother parents and discover that I was not alone. Using strategies from the Family SEAL course at home I felt made myfamily life a lot easier and my relationship improved with my child. I wanted to expand these skills and use them in aproductive way. The Family SEAL course helped me build and develop skills that have encouraged me to start aTeaching Assistant course."2.12 Do parents have the skills to cope with poverty?The Adult Community Learning Service has funded courses that help parents and carers to cope with poverty. Anumber of courses have taken place in school kitchens where parents and carers have learnt to cook on a budget;they have also offered a number of courses on financial literacy. In addition, the parenting courses aim to help instressful situations, including helping parents to maintain positive relationships with their children.Without extensive qualitative evidence of how parents cope with poverty, it is a challenge for local planners toassess if parents have skills to cope with living in poverty and its effects on their life chances.2.13 Are those working with parents and carers signposting them to relevant services?Many organisations do not consistently monitor or assess how successful their signposting is. It is therefore achallenge to identify if parents and carers are appropriately being signposted to services and whether they take upthe services on offer.Since August 2010, Next Step Information Advice and Guidance (IAG) providers in Nottinghamshire have supported4,900 adults. Whilst Next Step is a universal IAG service, the target groups include a combination of people who areunemployed, those recently made redundant and those at risk of redundancy.117

Appendix Three: Family and Life ChancesPoverty damages childhoods ‐ some families cannot, for example, afford to keep their homes warm, or pay for basicnecessities and activities, such as three meals a day, school uniforms or social outings. Children who grow up inpoverty lack many of the experiences and opportunities that others take for granted, and can be exposed to severehardship and social exclusion. Poor children are less likely to achieve higher level skills and qualifications, which arecritical to enter the workforce and progress in work, as well as to thrive in other areas of life. This in turn reduceseconomic productivity and stunts economic growth, limiting the UK’s ability to compete in the global economy.Unemployment is often strongly linked to unemployment in previous generations, meaning children living in lowincome or workless families are considered to be most at risk of struggling to find work in later life 174 .This chapter on family and life chances will focus on the effects of living in poverty for children and families inNottinghamshire, and will explore how child poverty manifests itself to affect outcomes for children and families.3.1 Does family size impact on levels of child poverty in Nottinghamshire and if so how?Families with three or more children have a 31% chance of relative poverty 175 . However, when looking at local datathere are too many ‘unknowns’ to have a clear judgement of whether this is true locally. It is hoped that the Census2011 will help identify this information for Nottinghamshire and its districts.Table 3.1 Nottinghamshire population with child dependents reliant on out of work benefits February 2010AreaAllno child4 or more1 child 2 children 3 childrendependantschildrenunknownAshfield 11,720 4,960 1,290 890 450 190 3,930Bassetlaw 9,730 4,110 940 660 310 150 3,550Broxtowe 7,400 3,440 690 430 190 100 2,550Gedling 7,840 3,570 860 520 230 110 2,550Mansfield 11,210 4,700 1,200 780 340 170 4,010Newark & Sherwood 8,290 3,390 850 590 270 150 3,050Rushcliffe 4,530 2,170 380 270 100 50 1,560Nottinghamshire 60,710 26,340 6,210 4,140 1,890 920 21,210Source: Office of National Statistics, 20103.2 What do we know about the relationships between poverty and teenage pregnancy? How does earlypregnancy impact on child poverty in Nottinghamshire and what interventions are in place?Teenage pregnancy is often a cause and a consequence of social exclusion, health inequalities and child poverty. Therisk of teenage parenthood is greatest for young people who have grown up in poverty and disadvantage, or thosewith poor educational attainment. Overall, teenage parenthood is more common in areas of deprivation andpoverty. 176 Poverty is a key risk factor and research shows that the risk of becoming a teenage mother is almost tentimes higher for a girl whose family is in social class V (unskilled manual), than those in social class I (professional). 177Teenage parent families, by their nature, have at least one parent under the age of 18 with responsibility for adependent child, who is likely to be under five years. These families are at increased risk of the biggest causes ofpoverty, unemployment and low pay, whilst under fives make up 44% of all children in poverty 178 . As a result,children of teenage mothers have a 63% increased risk of being born into poverty, compared to babies born tomothers in their twenties 179 .174 Blanded J & Gibbons S (2006) The perspective of poverty across generations: a view from two British cohorts. Joseph Rowntree Foundation175 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai176 Social Exclusion Unit (1999) ‘Teenage Pregnancy’177 B Botting, M Rosato and R Wood (1998) ‘Teenage Mothers and the health of their children, Population Trends, 93’178 DWP (2008) ‘Ending child poverty: everybody's business.179 Mayhew E and Bradshaw J (2005) ‘Mothers, babies and the risks of poverty’ Poverty, No.121 p13‐16.118

Poverty, like teenage pregnancy, follows inter‐generational cycles with children born into poverty at increased risk ofteenage pregnancy, especially for young women living in workless households when aged 11‐15 180 . The majority ofteenage parents and their children live in deprived areas and often exhibit multiple risk factors for poverty,experiencing poor health, social and economic outcomes and inter‐generational patterns of deprivation. Teenagerswho become pregnant are more likely to drop out of school, missing a key phase of their education, leading to loweducational attainment and no or low‐paying, insecure jobs without training. Young mothers are also more likely tobe lone parents with their children raised in a home with one income and often living in sub‐standard housing ortemporary accommodation. All these factors mean teenage mothers and their children need support to find a wayout from what is often a low‐income community to begin with, often comprising inter‐generational families ofteenage parents.Preventing Teenage PregnancyTackling child poverty will contribute to the reduction in teenage conceptions. Investing in actions to reduceteenage pregnancy and improve outcomes for teenage parents and their children enables young people to achievetheir potential, increasing their social capacity and producing savings in the longer term.Young people in lower socio‐economic groups are more likely to have sex at an earlier age, not use contraception,and are more likely to reject a termination if they are pregnant 181 . The risk factors for teenage pregnancy areunderstood nationally ‐ where young people experience multiple risk factors their likelihood of teenage parenthoodincreases significantly. Young women experiencing five risk factors have a 31% probability of becoming a motherunder 20, compared with a 1% probability for someone experiencing none of these risk factors 182 . Similarly, youngmen experiencing the same five risk factors had a 23% probability of becoming a young father (under age 23),compared to 2% for those not experiencing any of these risk factors.Provisional statistics show that in 2008 the under‐18 conception 183 rate 184 in Nottinghamshire was 39.9 per 1000.Rates have decreased by 14.5% from 1998 baseline figures 185 . However, there were 588 under 18 conceptions in2008, compared with 524 in 2007. To meet the 2010 50% reduction target, conceptions will need to be reduced by afurther 35.5%.Figure 3.2a Nottinghamshire Teenage Conception Rates 1998‐2008Source: Office for National Statistics, 2010180 Ermisch, J., Francesconi, M and Pevalin, D. J. (2001) ‘The outcomes for poverty of children’ DWP Research Report 15.181 Department for Education and Skills (2007) Teenage Pregnancy Next Steps: Guidance for Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts onEffective Delivery of Local Strategies182 Berrington A, Diamond I, Ingham R, Stevenson J et al (2005) Consequences of teenage parenthood: pathways which minimise thelong term negative impacts of teenage childbearing’ University of Southampton183 Data includes conceptions which results in one or more registered live or still births; or legal abortion (under the Abortion Act 1967). Itdoes not include miscarriages or illegal abortions.184 Teenage Conception rates are measured for conceptions amongst young women per 1000 15‐17 year olds resident within a Local Authorityboundary.185 The year given relates to the year in which the conception occurred.119

The graph below highlights the differences between the districts. (NB – district level data is aggregated to include athree year period, and consequently the reduction for Nottinghamshire County is different to the provisional 2008rate of 39.9 per 1000 and a reduction of 14.5% since the baseline).Figure 3.2b Aggregated teenage conception rate by area of residence 1998/2000‐2006/08There are teenage conception hot spot wards across Nottinghamshire and these are correlated to the wards with thehighest levels of deprivation. Hot spot wards are identified where the teenage conception rate is significantly higherthan the England teenage conception rate. These are indicated by the bright red areas on Figure 3.2c. In total, thereare 20 hot spot wards in Nottinghamshire. All districts have at least one hot spot area apart from Rushcliffe andGedling, although rates in Rushcliffe and Gedling are rising.120

Figure 3.2c Nottinghamshire’s teenage conception hotspot wards by district 2005 – 2007The proportion of conceptions resulting in a termination of pregnancy also varies across districts withinNottinghamshire. Rushcliffe and Gedling have a higher proportion than the county average. The choice to terminatea pregnancy is strongly associated with the level of aspirations of a young woman. To continue with a pregnancy isoften seen as a positive choice for young women with low educational attainment and limited future career plans 186 .The relationship between a health issue and deprivation can be quantified using the slope index of inequality (SII)and changes can be monitored over time. The SII takes into account the relative population size and the level ofdeprivation of each ward in Nottinghamshire. The SII shows the difference in conception rate between the mostdeprived wards and the least deprived wards. Figure 3.2d shows that for the period 2005 to 2007 there is a slopeindex of 46.92, which means that there were just over 46 more conceptions per 1,000 females aged 15‐17 in themost deprived wards than in the least deprived wards (95% confidence intervals (CI) indicate the figure is between36 and 57).186 Nottinghamshire JSNA September 2010121

Figure 3.2d Slope index of inequality showing under‐18 conceptions by ward in Nottinghamshire 2005 ‐ 2007.Slope index of inequality, under 18 conceptions, Wards in Nottinghamshire, 2005-7.Slope index = 46.92 (95% Confidence Interval: 36.97 to 56.86)Conception Rate2001801601401201008060402000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1Relative Rank from low to high IMD scoreSource: Teenage Pregnancy Unity and East Midlands Public Health Observatory, 2010.[Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score ranges from 0 (least deprived) through to 1 (most deprived) wards]The aim over time is that health inequalities are reduced by lowering teenage conceptions across the whole ofNottinghamshire but to a greater degree in more deprived wards. This would have the effect of flattening the slopetherefore reducing the SII value without increasing the rate of teenage conceptions in less deprived wards.Figure 3.2e shows how the SII (without the wards plotted) has changed over three different time periods (2001‐03,2004‐06 and 2005‐07). This shows that the conception rate in the most deprived wards has reduced in 2005‐07 fromthat of 2001‐03 (top right end of slope), but the conception rate in the least deprived wards has increased. Thisimplies that health inequalities have reduced slightly, but not in the way we would want.The accompanying table, Table 3.2f, shows the SII value, which has reduced over time, alongside the under‐18conception rate, which has remains fairly static over the same time period.Figure 3.2e Change in slope index of inequality for teenage conception in Nottinghamshire County wards overtime80Teenage conception rate7060504030202001-20032004-20062005-2007100leastdeprivedmostdeprivedSource: Teenage Pregnancy Unit and East Midlands Observatory, 2010[IMD score ranges from 0 (least deprived) through to 1 (most deprived) wards]122

Table 3.2f Change in slope index of inequality for teenage conception in Nottinghamshire County wards over timeNottinghamshire2001‐03(95% confidenceinterval)2004‐06(95% confidenceinterval)2005‐07(95% confidenceinterval)Slope Index of Inequalityvalue59.08 (50.2,68.0) 53.00 (43.7,63.3) 46.9 (37.0,56.9)Under 18 conception rateper 1000 15‐1737.3 36.5 36.2Source: Teenage Pregnancy Unity and East Midlands Public Health Observatory, 2010Figure 3.2g compares the districts within Nottinghamshire with areas that are similar. A different set of peers is usedat district level, as defined by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Rushcliffe, Gedling, Broxtowe and Newark &Sherwood are classified as Prospering Smaller Towns. Rushcliffe is the only area with a rate which is significantlylower than the ONS peer group average. Ashfield, Mansfield and Bassetlaw are classified as Manufacturing Towns.Ashfield and Bassetlaw have significantly lower rates of teenage conception than their ONS peer group average.Figure 3.2g Under‐18 conception rate by district in Nottinghamshire and related ONS peer groups, 2005‐2007Source: Teenage Pregnancy Unit, 2010Teenage ParentsKey Statistics:• Children of teenage mothers have a 63% increased risk of being born into poverty compared to babies bornto mothers in their twenties 187• Teenage mothers are 20% more likely to have no qualifications at age 30 than mothers giving birth aged 24or over 188• It is estimated that 70% of teenage mothers aged 16‐19 are not in education, training or employment 189• 70% of mothers aged 16‐19 claim Income Support 190• At age 30, teenage mothers are 22% more likely to be living in poverty than mothers giving birth aged 24 orover, and are much less likely to be employed or living with a partner 191187 Teenage Parents: Who cares? A guide to commissioning and delivering maternity services for young parents DFES & DH 2008188 Ermisch J (2003) Does a ‘teen birth’ have longer term impacts on the mother? Suggestive evidence from the British Household Panel StudyISER Working Papers No. 2003‐32; Institute for Social and Economic Research.189 DfES (2007) Teenage Parents, Next Steps: Guidance for Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts.190 DfES (2007) Teenage Parents, Next Steps: Guidance for Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts.123

• Teenage mothers are more likely to partner with men who are poorly qualified and more likely to experienceunemployment 192• Young fathers are twice as likely to be unemployed at age 30 than men who become fathers after they turn23 193• The daughter of a teenage mother is twice as likely to become a teenage mother compared to a daughterwith an older mother 194• Teenage motherhood is more prevalent amongst groups from manual social backgrounds that those fromprofessional backgrounds, as can be evidenced in the following graph.Figure 3.2h Graph showing the association of social background and teenage motherhood 195It is important to stop families from falling into poverty by providing support for teenage parents to increase theiremployability through access to education, training and employment (EET). Paid employment is the single mostimportant factor in reducing the risk of poverty. Reducing barriers to EET is key to this, in particular ensuring theavailability of rolling and introductory programmes of study which have flexible hours and take account of thedemands of caring for a child, paid childcare which is flexible and non‐judgemental 196 , as well as accessible transport.A lead professional who can help to broker arrangements with schools, colleges etc can make the difference inencouraging young mothers back into EET.Young mothers are under‐represented amongst young people in EET as has been evidenced previously in 2.9.191 Ermisch J (2003) Does a ‘teen birth’ have longer term impacts on the mother? Suggestive evidence from the British Household Panel StudyISER Working Papers No. 2003‐32; Institute for Social and Economic Research.192 Ermisch J (2003) Does a ‘teen birth’ have longer term impacts on the mother? Suggestive evidence from the British Household Panel StudyISER Working Papers No. 2003‐32; Institute for Social and Economic Research.193 DfES (2007) Teenage Parents, Next Steps: Guidance for Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts.194 Social Exclusion Task Force 2007195 Childhood, infant and perinatal mortality statistics 2006 data, DHS, ONS, England and Wales196 Dench S,and Bellis A (2007) Learning for Young Mothers A qualitative study of flexible provision Report 441, Institute for EmploymentStudies, July 2007 ISBN: 978‐1‐85184‐386‐2, pp. xiv+69.124

Table 3.2i Teenage Parents Employment, Education & Training (EET) Data (March 2009 & March 2010)March 2010 March 2009TMsknownto CXEET%EETNotknown% notknownTMsknownto CX EET % EET%changeNottinghamshire 401 100 25% 75 19% 453 107 24% 6%Total FemaleNEET, March 2009% TeenageMothers (as a % oftotal female NEET)Total FemaleNEET, March2010% Teenage Mothers (as a %of total female NEET)Nottinghamshire * 547 44.4% (243) 474 29.1% (138)* The above data for is for 16‐18 year olds only. [CX = Connexions; TM = Teenage mothers]Support for Teenage Parents• Children centres provide support across the generations of those affected by teenage parenthood. The FamilySupport Strategy highlights the role of children’s centres in supporting teenage parents, including young fathers,pre‐birth and beyond, as well as support to the child of teenage parents. The strategy identifies teenage parentsas a ‘priority group’ for children’s centre engagement and as a result a number of strategies have beendeveloped to respond to this requirement. The following graph shows how many teenage mothers areregistered with Sure Start children’s centres.Figure 3.2j Numbers of teenage mothers registered with children’s centres in Nottinghamshire, September 2009‐August 2010Source: Early Years & Childcare, Nottinghamshire County Council, November 2010When examining children’s centre data, only 12 young mothers under the age of 16 were registered with children’scentres between August 2009 and September 2010.• Connexions Nottinghamshire currently provides additional support for teenage parents and will provide apersonal advisor to engage them into EET. However, as previously identified, many teenage mothers havedisengaged from education prior to conception, so engaging them when they are 16 and 17 is a challenge. Forsome, however, pregnancy is seen as a motivator to improve outcomes for their children, although this is morecommon amongst young women already receiving support from services. The future of the personal advisorrole is uncertain due to budget cuts and service realignment.125

‘Since I found out I was pregnant I really wanted to do well in my GCSE’s. I want to be a good example to my babyand get my qualifications so that I can go to college.’A 16 year old mum• Supported accommodation and floating support services commissioned by Supporting People also offerservices for pregnant teenagers and teenage mothers. This is a group at risk of homelessness and in need ofsupport for independent living skills, as well as support for parenting, education and money management.• Early intervention offered by Youth Support Services will be in place from April 2011 and will work to engagepregnant teenagers and teenage parents ‐ the scope of delivery has yet to be finalised.• Individual provision leads within Nottinghamshire Learning Centre support pregnant young women andteenage parents of school age to remain/return to school.• Children and young people’s workers have a role to play in supporting pregnant teenagers/teenage parents asthese young people are considered more vulnerable and will require additional support. All under 16’s who arepregnant or a parent should have a Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and a lead professional with whomthey feel comfortable. A CAF may also be appropriate for teenage parents who are over 16. The leadprofessional will need to liaise with a number of support services and the school to ensure there is a coordinatedsupport package in place.Long term resources for these services are not yet secure. From April 2011, Connexions Nottinghamshire andSupporting People will have budget cuts which may impact on this activity.3.3 What do we know about the relationships between poverty and poor health outcomes? How do the healthneeds of our poorest communities compare with others? Where should we target interventions and whatinterventions are needed? Are we currently targeting those who need more interventions?“Poverty and social inequalities in childhood have profound effects on the health of children, and their impact onhealth continues to reverberate throughout the life course into late adulthood. Globally and historically, poverty hasbeen the major determinant of child and adult health and, even in rich nations such as the UK, it remains a majorcause of ill health with huge public health consequences.” 197Pregnancy and maternal healthPoverty in childhood exerts its effect throughout the life course and can be transmitted across generations.Intergenerational transmission occurs through maternal health and health‐related behaviour before and duringpregnancy 62 .Women who come from poor families are more likely to have poor health and significant psychological problemswhen they become pregnant. During pregnancy, they are more likely to have poorer nutrition, genital infectionsand smoke. These are important determinants of the outcome of pregnancy, including infant birth weight, which isitself an important determinant of infant mortality 198 .Smoking in pregnancySmoking in pregnancy is a key cause of ill health for both mother and baby. Babies born to women who smoke are27% more likely to be born prematurely and have an 82% increase in risk of being of low birth weight (less than2500g) compared to babies born to non smoking mothers. Babies born to mothers who smoke are up to three timesas likely to die from sudden unexpected deaths in infancy (SUDI) and smoking in pregnancy increases infant mortalityby about 40% 199 .197 N Spencer Health Consequences of Poverty for Children. End Child Poverty 2008198 M S Kramer, L Séguin, J Lydon and L Goulet, ‘Socioeconomic Disparities in Pregnancy Outcome: why do the poor fare so poorly?’, Paediatricand Perinatal Epidemiology 14, 2000, pp194‐210199 Passive smoking and children, Royal College of Physicians 2010126

Nationally, smoking prevalence is highest in the routine and manual social group and among mothers under 20 yearsold, of whom approximately 45% smoke throughout their pregnancy.Figure 3.3a show the percentage of mothers known to smoke at the time of delivery, data which is collected inhospital at the time of delivery. Nationally, smoking in pregnancy is higher in areas with higher deprivation (IMD)scores. Locally, Nottinghamshire PCT had maternal smoking levels in line with regional and national averages.However, figures for Bassetlaw were significantly higher.Figure 3.3a Percentage of mothers smoking at time of delivery Q3 2008/09Source: NHS Nottinghamshire County, 2010Low birth weight (LBW) babiesNationally, LBW is associated with both very young mothers and mothers over 40 years.consistently been shown to decrease with lower social status 200 .Birth weight hasFigure 3.3b Percentage of babies with low birth weight by deprivation quintile within Nottinghamshire (April 2003– March 2009)Source: Hospital Episode Statistics, 2010 (10.293 missing records excluded, total records 47,417)200 N Spencer Health Consequences of Poverty for Children. End Child Poverty 2008127

Figure 3.3b shows that the proportion of LBW babies increases with higher deprivation. The most deprived quintilehad a significantly higher proportion of LBW births (8.3%) than the three least deprived quintiles (4.8% in the leastdeprived quintile).Infant MortalityInfant mortality rate (IMR) is defined as the number of deaths of children under the age of one year, per 1000 livebirths. It is a sensitive measure of the overall health of a population, providing an important measure of the wellbeingof infants, children and pregnant women. Although infant mortality in England is at an all‐time low, significantinequalities persist within the country. All causes of neonatal death show a socio‐economic gradient and there is amarked gap between IMR in the most deprived groups and the least deprived groups in the population. Modellinghas identified interventions that will contribute to reducing this gap 201 , namely:• If the prevalence of obesity in the Routine & Manual (R&M) group were to fall by 23% to the current levels ofobesity in the population as a whole, this would reduce the gap by 2.8%• Meeting the national target to reduce smoking in pregnancy from 23% to 15% in the R&M group would reducethe gap by 2%• Reducing sudden unexpected deaths in infancy in the R&M group by persuading one in ten women in this groupto avoid sharing a bed with their baby, or putting it to sleep prone, would reduce the gap by 1.4%• Achieving the teenage pregnancy target would reduce the gap by 1%.The IMR in Nottinghamshire, 4.9 per 1000 live births, does not differ significantly from that of national, regional orchildren’s services peers (Table 3.3c). For the period 2006‐2008, none of the local authorities within Nottinghamshirediffer greatly from the England or East Midlands rates. Although Ashfield has the highest IMR for the time period (6.9per 1000 live births), and Broxtowe and Gedling the lowest (3.0 per 1000 live births), these rates are not statisticallysignificantly different to any other local authority within Nottinghamshire.Table 3.3c Infant mortality rates ‐ England, East Midlands and local authorities in Nottinghamshire 2006‐08 pooleddataNumber oflive birthsNumber ofdeaths

Local information on the numbers of children and young people with specific disabilities/long‐term conditions can bedifficult to access, as it is collected and held by individual services and practitioners, is often out of date and is notroutinely shared.The Thomas Coram Research Unit has estimated the number of disabled children in England. The estimated meanproportion of disabled children in local authorities was between 3% and 5.4% with some form of disability. Fig 3.3dshows what this equates to in numbers by local authority, but these estimates do not take into account localvariations in deprivation 202 .Figure 3.3d Estimated number of children with some form of disability in Nottinghamshire districtsLocal AuthorityEstimated number of childrenwith some form of disabilityMinimum MaximumAshfield 743 1337Bassetlaw 700 1260Broxtowe 629 1132Gedling 672 1210Mansfield 643 1158Newark and Sherwood 713 1283Rushcliffe 688 1238Source: CHIMAT, 2010Emergency hospital admissionsAcute illnesses are more likely to affect poor children and they are at greater risk of hospital admission and are morelikely to experience multiple admissions before the age of three 203 .Figure 3.3e illustrates the variation between districts within Nottinghamshire. Mansfield and Bassetlaw hadsignificantly higher emergency hospital admission rates than England and other districts within the county. It isrecognised that high emergency admission rates are associated with deprivation, which explains much of thevariation between districts.Figure 3.3e Emergency* hospital admissions for children aged 0‐19 from Nottinghamshire districts in 2008 & 2009(standard population is England, 95% confidence intervals shown)Source: Hospital Episode Statistics 2010[*All unplanned admissions, excluding births]202 Disabled Children: Numbers, Characteristics and Local Service Provision. Thomas Coram Research Unit & Institute of Education, Universityof London. Report to DCSF, 2008203 N J Spencer, M A Lewis and S Logan, ‘Multiple Admission and Deprivation’, Archives of Disease in Childhood 68, 1993, pp760‐62).129

Figure 3.3f Emergency* hospital admissions for children aged 0‐19 living Nottinghamshire in 2008 & 2009, bydeprivation quintile (standard population is England, 95% confidence intervals shown)140120)100RA(Stio 80ranoisis 60mdadeis 40rdadnta 20S0Q1 Least deprived Q2 Below average Q3 Average Q4 Above average Q5 Most deprived* all unplanned admissions, excluding birthsSource: Hospital Episode Statistics 2010[*All unplanned admissions, excluding births]Impact on mental healthChildren growing up in poverty are more likely to suffer emotional and behavioural problems and these emerge earlyin childhood 204 . Nationally, one in six children from low income families suffered from mental health disorders,compared with one in twenty children in better‐off households. 205 The social differences were particularly strikingfor boys, where there was a three fold increase in behavioural problems among those in the poorest compared withthe most affluent groups. Conditions with strong social differences include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder(ADHD), bedwetting and self‐harming 78 .The reasons behind the higher rates of mental and behavioural disorders in children living in poverty are complex.Socio‐economic disadvantage can compound chronic stress, family instabilities and parental mental health issueswhich can impair parenting. Family instability can result in children being brought up in one parent families. Loneparent families are common among those in poverty and particularly amongst teenage parents 78 .The Tellus 206 Survey measures emotional health of children in a number of ways, including asking young people ifthey enjoy good relationships. Results for Nottinghamshire indicate that the percentage responding positively to thisquestion fell slightly between 2008/09 and 2009/10.204 N Spencer Health Consequences of Poverty for Children. End Child Poverty 2008205 H Meltzer et al, The Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in Great Britain, The Stationery Office, 2000206 Caution should be exercised when using Tellus 4 data. Although the Department for Children, Schools and Families regards the data asstatistically valid, it should be noted that only 21 schools in Nottinghamshire responded (488 primary pupils and 972 secondary pupils) to thesurvey. Nottinghamshire’s full Tellus 4 results can be accessed at http://www.tellussurvey.org.uk/Reports/Report.aspx130

Figure 3.3g NI 50 Emotional health of children: percentage of children who enjoy good relationships with theirfamily and friends706050tsned40nopsre 30fo%20Nottinghamshire CtyStatistical neighboursNational10062 56 57 5608/09 09/10Source: Tellus SurveyThere are certain risk factors which are known to be associated with poor mental health. By understanding theseacross our local population, it is possible to develop a picture of emotional and mental health needs in theboroughs/districts of Nottinghamshire. Key indicators considered are:• Deprivation levels• Children in poverty• Homelessness• Mental illness (adults – as measured by Mental Illness Needs Index)• GCSE attainment• Use of drugs.Districts in Nottinghamshire have quite different levels of emotional and mental health need, with prevalence ofdisorders varying also. Figure 3.3h shows the proportion of Children & Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS)referrals for the three main disorders which are known to be more common in poorer children (hyperkineticdisorders, conduct disorders, self‐harming). There were a higher proportion of these disorders in more deprivedareas of Nottinghamshire.Figure 3.3h Proportion of CAMHS referrals for mental and behavioural disorders more common in poorerchildren*605450SHMA 40Ctols30raferef 20o%10233042 4200Gedling Rushcliffe BroxtoweandHucknallBassetlawNewark &SherwoodAshfield andMansfield*hyperkineticdisorders, conduct disorders, self‐harming131

Source: CAMHS Health Needs Assessment, Nottinghamshire County (EMPHO) 2009Issues related to socio‐economic deprivation across the county have a considerable influence on levels of need, withmore deprived areas generally having higher risk factors for poor emotional and mental health in children and youngpeople.Talking TherapiesSurveys on Young People have identified isolation as a key factor and they want someone to talk to about theirproblems. Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) is targeted at young people who need someone totalk to but are not mentally ill. They may have suffered bereavement or family breakdown.This is also linked to the employment agenda, as there is a need to get people off benefits and to work to reduce theeffects of poverty. If people are off work with stress and anxiety, they can deteriorate rapidly and these therapiestry to reduce the effects. The recession also impacts on mental health and NHS Bassetlaw funds a worker atWorksop Citizens Advice Bureau because of the effects of debt and poverty on mental health.Bassetlaw PCT is four weeks into a new Talking Therapies Service programme. Young people can be signposted toother services. It is available from age 13 and has to be referred to by a GP. It will be available as a self‐referral. It isa national programme, but the PCT wants the scheme to meet the needs in Bassetlaw. There are a range of reasonsfor people wanting Talking Therapies. If people have work related stress they may not want it on their GP records.The PCT works with local prisons and prisoners have different needs. Young people may need support that is notmedical, such as coping with bereavement, to prevent problems later in life.BreastfeedingA large body of published research shows that breast feeding has clear health benefits for both mothers and infants.Breastfed babies are less likely to suffer from conditions such as gastroenteritis, chest, urinary tract or ear infections,diabetes in childhood, and childhood obesity. Mothers who breastfeed have a reduced risk in later life of somecancers (ovarian and breast) and of osteoporosis. As a result of a systematic review published by the World HealthOrganisation (WHO) on exclusive breast feeding in 2000, WHO revised its guidance to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of an infant’s life 207 .Figure 3.3i Percentage of maternities where breast feeding was initiated207 Nottinghamshire JSNA September 2010132

Source: Local Delivery Plan Return data/Department of Health (DH) data, 2010Figure 3.3j NI 53 Percentage of babies totally/partially breastfed at 6‐8 weeks by Office of National Statistics PCTcomparator group, 2009/10 Quarter 3Source: Local Delivery Plan Return data/DH data, 2010When compared to PCT statistical neighbours, NHS Nottinghamshire County and NHS Bassetlaw are performing wellin relation to maintenance of breast feeding at 6‐8 weeks according to the latest data. However, whilst breastfeeding initiation rates are increasing locally, in excess of Department of Health targets, the numbers of motherswho stop breast feeding between birth and when their baby is 6‐8 weeks (drop‐off rates) are particularly high.Life ExpectancyLife expectancy is an overall measure of inequalities in health outcomes. It is widely recognised that life expectancyin the most deprived areas is significantly shorter than in the least deprived areas. The relationship between lifeexpectancy and deprivation has been explored at a local level by the Association of Public Health Observatories(APHO). Figures 3.3k & l below show that males living in the least deprived areas in NHS Nottinghamshire can expectto live nine years longer than those living in the most deprived areas. The gap is seven years for females inNottinghamshire. For NHS Bassetlaw (Figures 3.3m & n) the inequalities gap is narrower: males living in the leastdeprived areas can expect to live seven years longer and females four years longer than those born in the mostdeprived areas.Health in MansfieldThe health of Mansfield’s population is another significant issue. This is illustrated by a life expectancy that is lowerthan the national average. Male life expectancy is 76.11 years which is 1.82 years lower than the national average,whilst female life expectancy stands at 80.68 years which is 1.34 years lower than national average (ONS). Mansfieldalso has a high teenage pregnancy rate of 49.7 per 1,000, compared to an East Midlands rate of 40.1 per 1,000, andthe national rate of 41.2 per 1,000.Furthermore, 24.2% of Mansfield’s population suffers from a limiting long term illness, based on figures from the2001 census. This represents nearly one quarter of Mansfield residents and is higher than the national figure of17.9%. Consequently, Mansfield has 910 people claiming Disability Living Allowance and 6,870 people claimingIncapacity Benefit. These represent higher figures than any other Nottinghamshire district, but may go some way toexplaining the relatively high level of economic inactivity amongst Mansfield’s working age population.133

Figure 3.3k&lSource: Association of Public Health Observatories, 2010134

Figure 3.3m&nSource: Association of Public Health Observatories, 2010NHS Bassetlaw is measured on its performance in reducing inequalities and aims to improve. It supports breastfeedinginitiatives as it gives children a good start in life and this is free. The family does not need to use prepreparedfood. Teenage Pregnancy is a challenge in Bassetlaw and NHS Bassetlaw is trying to reduce the numbers ofunwanted pregnancies to reduce the cycle of deprivation. Obesity levels in Bassetlaw need to be reduced, as obesityis linked to many diseases such as heart failure. It also promotes healthy eating, because if people remain healthy,they stay in work and so maintain their income levels.There are particular groups at risk of poor health including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) groups. A study 208 intothe health needs of the GRT community in Newark & Sherwood included identification of the following problems:• Travellers had higher mortality and morbidity rates due to lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonarydisease208 Health Needs Assessment for Travellers in Newark & Sherwood, Dr Arun Patel et al, Newark & Sherwood PCT, 2004135

• Higher coronary heart disease related morbidity• There were higher rates of mental ill health• The relatively unsafe environment experienced by travellers led to high accident rates and trauma• There was inappropriate access to health services and lack of community care• There was poor experience of health services and poor uptake of health promotion services such asscreening and immunisation• High rates of ‘did not attend’ for hospital appointments• Lack of health data recording for travellers locally• Poor access to water and sanitation• Men in particular had poor awareness of health and were unwilling to address health problems.The study found that the living environment experienced by GRTs clearly affected health and well‐being. Manytraveller families lacked basic sanitary facilities such as private toilets (29%) and baths (34%). 32% of familiesreported their children had experienced accidents at home or in play areas. 39% of families reported limiting longterm illness.The report said that many respondents said they had difficulties in accessing services and that this was often due tothe perceived prejudice of some service providers, but was sometimes also due to their own lack of knowledge.There was reasonable access to health and education services, but it was felt that other services were more difficultto access.3.4 What do we know about the relationship between poverty and childhood obesity?Analysis of data by deprivation quintile 209 shows that the prevalence of obesity increases with deprivation. There is apositive relationship between obese and overweight children and deprivation in Nottinghamshire for both sexes,especially in Year 6 210 . This is illustrated in detail in the children & young people’s chapter of the JSNA 2010.When interpreting these results, it should be noted that they may be affected by participation rates and differencesin population profiles, such as the number of males and females.Figure 3.4a Prevalence of obesity and overweight children by deprivation quintile: Year 6 boys in Nottinghamshire,2008/09Source: EMPHO, 2010 [most deprived quintile=1, least deprived quintile=5]209 ‘Quintile’ here refers to the division of deprivation into five categories210 Nottinghamshire JSNA September 2010136

Figure 3.4b Prevalence of obesity and overweight children by deprivation quintile: Year 6 girls in Nottinghamshire,2008/0940Overweight and obese Obese Obese national average Overweight and obese national average3530Percentage25201510501 2 3 4 5IMD 2007 QuintileSource: EMPHO, 2010 [most deprived quintile=1, least deprived quintile=5]If a household or individual are unable to obtain a nutritionally adequate diet, they are typically considered to beliving in food poverty. Food poverty has also been defined as those households that “do not have enough food tomeet the energy and nutrient needs of all of their members” 211 .A study undertaken in Newcastle 212 found that knowledge and awareness about healthy eating were the mostimportant predictors of achieving a healthy diet in the total study population. Subsequent analysis identified aspecific sub‐group of residents that did not have adequate access to private or public transport and who shoppedmainly in their local area. In this sub‐group, availability of fruit and vegetables in their local area and distance to theirmain food outlet were reported as being strong predictors of a healthy diet, although knowledge and awareness of ahealthy diet were still seen to have a significant influence. It was reported that this population group had poorerdietary intake in comparison to other groups and lower intakes of fruit and vegetables. This is backed up by theNottinghamshire’s Food Initiative Group, which found that deprived areas such as Ashfield had poorer access tofresh fruit and vegetables 213 .There has been a recent rise in the take up of free school meals in primary and secondary schools across all districts.The first term of 2010 saw an increase of 8‐10% (three percentage points) on paid and free meals sales, back to pre‐2005 sales levels.Participation in physical exercise and school sportThe (DfE) Physical Exercise and Sport Survey gives an indication of young people’s participation in physical exercise(PE) and school sport in Nottinghamshire. National Indicator (NI) 57 measures the percentage of 5‐16 year oldsundertaking at least two hours high quality PE and sport at school during curriculum time. This is a baselineobjective, as the aim is for children and young people to be offered five hours a week of high‐quality PE and sport.Figure 3.4c shows that pupils in Nottinghamshire have relatively high participation rates when compared tostatistical peers and the national average. Indeed, the proportion of pupils participating in PE and sport hasincreased over the past three years.211 DeRose L, Messer E, Millman S. Who's hungry? And how do we know? Food shortage, poverty, and deprivation. New York: United NationsUniversity Press, 1998.212 University of Newcastle. Do food deserts exist? A multi‐level, geographical analysis of the relationship between retail food access, socioeconomicposition and dietary intake. London: Food Standards Agency, 2004.213 Ward M & Kenning M (2007) ‘Access to Healthy Food in Ashfield’ Food Initiatives Group, Groundwork Trust Nottinghamshire.137

Figure 3.4c NI 57 Percentage of 5‐16 year olds in Nottinghamshire County undertaking at least two hours highquality PE and sport at school during curriculum time90Nottinghamshire Cty Statistical neighbours National807060% of pupils5040302010075 7983 79 8106/07 07/08 08/09Source: DCSF “Physical Exercise and Sport Survey”Results from the ICM survey 214 of 811 young people aged 11‐18 in Nottinghamshire indicate that two thirds (67%) ofyoung people in Nottinghamshire take part in sport or physical activity at least once a week (Figure 3.4d). A further7% do so once or twice a month, while for 4%, it is every few months or less. A fifth (21%) say they never play sportor do physical activity, which equates to over 30,000 young people in Nottinghamshire. 215 Social class has a bearing:twice as many children and young people classified as from social group D and E as from groups A and B 216 never dosport (30% compared to 15%). Propensity to do sport also declines with age, with the proportion who never takepart rising from 11% of 11 year olds to 30% of 18 year olds.Figure 3.4d Young people’s participation in sport or physical activityTwo thirds of young people do sport or physical activity at least oncea weekFrequency of sport/physical activityNET Onceor twice amonth, 7%NET Onceevery fewmonths orless, 4%One fifth (21%) never do any sport orphysical activityT otalM aleFemale13%21%30%AB15%Never,21%C1C2DE17%16%30%NET Atleast oncea week,67%111213141516171811%16%16%17%23%27%27%30%Q5. How often do you do each of the following types of activity in your free time? Playsport or other physical activity Base: All respondents (811)Source: ICM Government & Social Research Unit, 2010Change4Life school events in 2010 have taken place in targeted areas of deprivation and with vulnerable groups toidentify and develop solutions to barriers in accessing services which reduce the level of obesity in children andadults.214 The ICM Government & Social Research Unit survey was undertaken on behalf of the Nottinghamshire Children’s Trust in March 2010. Thefull report can be accessed at: http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/consultation/notts_cc_young_people_s_survey_final.pdf215 Based on 2008 mid‐year population estimates from the Office of National Statistics (ONS)216 Most market research projects classify the population into social grades – see Appendix 9 for details138

Although no data is available in terms of parents taking exercise, the Sport England Active People Survey does showgeneral adult participation in sport and active recreation. Figure 3.4e shows the percentage of adults participating inat least 30 minutes of sport or active recreation on at least three days a week in 2009. Although participation ratesdo not entirely track deprivation, the more affluent boroughs of Rushcliffe and Gedling have the highestparticipation rates, and the more deprived districts of Mansfield and Ashfield have the lowest. However, otherreasons for low levels of participation may play a role, such as age of the population and accessible opportunities forrecreation.Figure 3.4e Active People Survey (2009)% adults participating in at least 30 minutes sport/active recreationon at least three days a weekPercentage2019181716151413AshfieldBassetlawBroxtoweGedlingMansfieldNewark & SherwoodRushcliffeNottinghamshireEast MidlandsEnglandSource: Sport England, 2010‘Active Rushcliffe’ is in place and aims to improve opportunities and increase participation in physical activity andsport by working in partnership. The Active Rushcliffe Partnership targets hard to reach groups, including homelessadults, as well as localities with the highest levels of deprivation 217 . It also offers weight management programmesfor children and young people.3.5 What do we know about the relationships between poverty and parental ill health? (Physical and mentaldisability)There is a recognised relationship between parental ill health and poverty within the household, wherebyhouseholds with a chronically ill person are among those with the highest levels of deprivation 218 . This is a cyclicalpattern whereby adults living in poverty will experience higher levels of ill health and people who are ill are morelikely to live in poverty 219 . As children will typically experience the same level of poverty as their parents, the impactof parental ill health is recognised as a key contributing factor on childhood poverty levels.“Mental illness is an under‐recognised but significant contributory factor to child poverty.” 220 Estimates suggestapproximately 2.2 million children in England and Wales live in households where at least one parent has a mentalillness; 950,000 of these live with single parents who have a mental disorder 221 .The relationship between poverty and mental health in adults is complex and multi‐directional, meaning thatpoverty has a direct impact on a person’s mental health, and mental health problems can themselves lead to povertyby creating challenges in managing personal finances, creating obstacles with employment, or with securing benefitsand accessing financial services 222 . These relationships can be cyclical and self‐perpetuating. It is not surprising,217 Active Rushcliffe Action Plan218 Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000219 M Evans and L Williams, Tackling child poverty when parents cannot work, 2008220 N Gould, Mental health and child poverty, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006221 N Gould, Mental health and child poverty, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006222 N Gould, Mental health and child poverty, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006139

then, that most psychological disorders are regularly associated with unemployment, lower levels of education,income and material living standards 223 .Impact on adult healthAs shown, children with parents who have poor health have a higher likelihood of living in poverty. Evidence showsthat this relationship works in the other direction as well, and that children living in poverty have a higher likelihoodof experiencing poor health as adults 224 . Complex relationships between maternal health, birth weight and socioeconomicfactors experienced during childhood appear to have an influence on health outcomes not only duringchildhood, but throughout the entire lifespan.Health outcomes for adults are used in this analysis as a proxy for effect of childhood poverty, as the deprivationlevels of the areas under analysis have remained relatively constant in terms of levels of deprivation over the past 50years. From this, it is further assumed that the adults living in deprived areas included within analysis alsoexperienced similar levels of deprivation in their childhood.Childhood poverty and cardio‐vascular disease in adulthoodAreas where there are higher levels of deprivation also experience higher levels of cardio‐vascular disease. As onemeasure within Nottinghamshire, coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality rates are approximately 31% higher formen and 40% higher for women in the most deprived areas when each is compared with the least deprived areas(see Figure 3.5a).Figure 3.5a200.00150.00100.0050.00CHD Mortality per 100,000 populationDirectly age‐standardized (DSR) 2006 ‐2008 pooled data, with 95% CI0.00RushcliffeCDGedling CDBroxtoweCDNewark andSherwoodCDBassetlawCDAshfield CDMansfieldCDMales Females England Males England FemalesSource: ‘Mortality from Coronary Heart Disease’ The information Centre. http://nww.nchod.nhs.uk/Childhood poverty and respiratory illness in adulthoodEvidence suggests that respiratory illnesses in early childhood are a risk factor for developing chronic obstructivelung disease in adulthood; considering respiratory illnesses are more common in children who live in poverty, this isanother way in which poverty in childhood can affect health outcomes for adults 225 .In Nottinghamshire, mortality rates from bronchitis, emphysema and other chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases(COPD) are higher in areas of greater deprivation. Compared with those who live in Rushcliffe, men who live inMansfield have nearly a 60% greater likelihood of COPD mortality; for women in Mansfield this number is 50%(Figure 3.5b).223 N Gould, Mental health and child poverty, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006224 N Spencer Childhood Poverty and Adult Health. End Child Poverty 2008225 N Spencer Childhood Poverty and Adult Health. End Child Poverty 2008140

Figure 3.5bMortality from bronchitis, emphysema and other COPD (ICD10 J40‐J44)Directly age‐standardised rates (DSR) Less than 75 years2006‐08 (Pooled), per 100,000 European Standard population30.0025.0020.0015.0010.005.000.00Rushcliffe CD Gedling CD Newark andSherwood CDBassetlaw CD Broxtowe CD Ashfield CD Mansfield CDmales females England males England femalesSource: The information Centre. http://nww.nchod.nhs.uk/Limiting long‐term illness and the impact of childhood povertyResearch suggests that adults are 50% more likely to self‐report a long‐standing illness if they were disadvantagedduring childhood 226 . In Nottinghamshire, there is a corresponding pattern between areas with higher levels ofdeprivation and households self‐reported to have limiting long‐term illness (Figure 3.5c)The area of Broxtowe appears to fall outside this pattern, as the self‐reported limiting illness levels are higher thanother areas where deprivation levels are considered to be higher. For example, approximately 19% fewer men inAshfield reported with limiting long‐term illness than did so in Broxtowe.Figure 3.5c160.0140.0120.0100.080.060.040.020.00.0Limiting long‐term illnessAge‐standardised ratio, Males & Females < 65 years2001 Census dataRushcliffe CD Bassetlaw CD Newark andSherwood CDGedling CD Ashfield CD Mansfield CD Broxtowe CDMales

Disability rates are associated with the relative deprivation of a local area 228 . For example:• Disabled people have lower household incomes on average and are more likely to be in the lowest incomegroups• They are more likely to have no educational qualifications and less likely to be employed• Many people with disabilities live in deprived communities, where employment and economic activity ratesare lower than the regional average• The more affluent areas have lower proportions of residents describing themselves as disabled.We also know that the employment rate among disabled people remains far below that of non‐disabled people, witharound 50% of disabled people not in work nationally, compared to around 20% of non‐disabled people 229 . Inaddition, the quality of accommodation for disabled people continues to be undermined by a shortage of bothaffordable and accessible housing, and problems still continue with effectively matching accessible accommodationto those that need it. A quarter of those disabled people who require adapted housing in England are currentlyliving in accommodation that is unsuitable for their needs 230 .More analysis is included in section 2.1.Young Carers“Young carers are children and young persons under 18 who provide, or intend to provide, care, assistance or supportto another family member. They carry out, often on a regular basis, significant or substantial caring tasks andassume a level of responsibility, which would usually be associated with an adult. The person receiving care is often aparent but can be a sibling, grandparent or other relative who is disabled, has some chronic illness, mental healthproblem or other condition connected with a need for care, support or supervision.” 231”A young carer becomes vulnerable when the level of care‐giving and responsibility to the person in need of carebecomes excessive or inappropriate for that child, risking impacting on his or her physical well‐being or educationalachievement and life chances.” 232The 2001 Census evidenced that 2% of the 0‐15 population in Nottinghamshire were carrying out caringresponsibilities for another person, in line with the national average. A survey commissioned by the SupportingDisabled Parents Working Panel in August 2009 gives an insight into the demands being placed on young people inthe county. The survey was sent out to the 119 young carers known to Action for Young Carers, and 29 responded.The majority of young carers surveyed said they looked after a parent (12 out of 14 were mothers) and three lookedafter both parents. The main issues experienced by the cared for were physical disability (10) and mental health (7).The details of the physical disability conditions revealed several cases of muscular sclerosis, epilepsy, spina bifida anda variety of degenerative musculoskeletal and neurological cases.24 young carers reported that they lived in the same house as the person they cared for and 19 gave the actualnumbers of hours they worked each week (Figure 3.5d). The median number (the number in the middle) was 20.5hours and the mode (the most frequent number) was 15 hours. The average number of hours worked per day duringthe week was 4 hours and 11 hours in total per weekend. Only six of the 28 young carers reported having dayswithout caring responsibilities, although three further carers reported variable times, which could include time off.228 Information taken from Nottinghamshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (Chapter 3), 2008229 Labour Force Survey, as presented in the Disability Rights Commission 'Disability Briefing May 2007', DRC, May 2007 cited in DisabilityPoverty in the UK, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2008230 'Housing in England 2005/06 – a report principally from the 2005/06 Survey of English Housing', DCLG, October 2007231Becker, S. (2000) ‘Young Carers’, in Davies, M. (ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Social Work. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, p. 378.232 Frank J & Mclarnon J. Key Principles of Practice for Young Carers and their Families. The Children’s Society 2008142

Figure 3.5d Number of hours of care per week by young carers in NottinghamshireHours of care a week1086420Variable Under 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to40 41 to 50 50 plusSource: Action for Young Carers Survey, 2009The most common tasks undertaken by the young carers involved in the study (Table 3.5e) included housework,preparing a meal, keeping the cared for company and food shopping. None of the carers reported working part timeto bring money in.Table 3.5e Tasks undertaken by young carersHouseworkincluding cleaning+ laundryPreparing a mealor snackKeeping them companyi.e. sitting with them ortaking them outFood shoppingHelping them getdressedHelping them totake theirmedicationHelp withfinancial matterslike paying bills orbanking24 22 23 21 11 11Help with lifting Helping them have aWorking parttimeie getting in or wash, bath or a showerto bringout of bedmoney inLooking afterchildren liketaking them toschoolInterpreting,using signlanguage or anyother language6 6 8 6 * 0Source: Action for Young Carers Survey, 2009[*Number below five and suppressed]3.6 What do we know about the relationships between poverty and substance use? What interventions are inplace?In England, approximately 400,000 benefit claimants (around 8% of all working age benefit claimants) in England aredependent on drugs or alcohol and generate benefit expenditure costs of approximately £1.6 billion per year 233 .Drug use, however, is widespread, affecting a range of groups. According to the latest British Crime Survey, 8.6% ofadults in 2009/10 had used an illicit drug in the last year 234 ‐ this is almost three million people.Whilst drug dependence can affect anyone, we know that those in our society with a background of childhoodabuse, neglect, trauma or poverty are disproportionately likely to be affected. In turn, the children of thosedependent on drugs have to cope with the impact on their own lives and some may end up in state care 235 . Themajority of young people do not use drugs, and most of those that do are not dependent. But drug or alcohol misusecan have a major impact on young people’s education, their health, their families and their long‐term chances in life.Early drug and alcohol use is related to a host of educational, health and social problems 236 . Children and youngpeople at risk of substance use are those who are also at greater risk of living in poverty. Homeless young people,233 Hay, G. and Bauld, L. (2008) Population estimates of problematic drug users in England who access DWP benefits: a feasibility study. DWPWorking Paper No. 46. Department for Work and Pensions; and Hay, G. and Bauld, L. (forthcoming in 2010) Population estimates of alcoholmisusers who access DWP benefits. DWP Working Paper.No. 94. Department for Work and Pensions234 Hoare, J. and Moon, D. (2010) Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2009/10 British Crime Survey England and Wales. Home OfficeStatistical Bulletin 13/10235 HM Government ‘Drug Strategy 2010. Reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery: supporting people to live a drug free life.Dec 2010236 HM Government ‘Drug Strategy 2010. Reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery: supporting people to live a drug free life.Dec 2010143

young people abused through prostitution, teenage mothers and young people not in education, employment ortraining are just some of the groups identified as being at risk of problematic substance use. Many of those at risklive in our most deprived communities.National Indicator 115 (substance misuse by young people) has seen an increase from the 2007/08 Nottinghamshirerate of 9.4% to 10.3% for 2008/09. Data for 2008/09 shows that the proportion of young people in Nottinghamshireusing drugs or alcohol frequently was comparable with the national rate and marginally lower than statisticalneighbours.Figure 3.6a NI 155 Substance misuse by young people in Nottinghamshire County: percentage of young peoplereporting frequent use of drugs or alcohol12Nottinghamshire Cty Statistical neighbours National108% of pupils64209 1011 1007/08 08/09Source: Tellus survey, 2008 & 2009 237The primary substances that young people are receiving specialist treatment for in Nottinghamshire continue to bealcohol and cannabis. Whilst alcohol referrals have increased markedly (42% to 53% of clients), there has been aslight decrease in cannabis referrals (45% to 41%) 238 .Referrals to specialist services from the Gedling and Rushcliffe area are low in comparison to other districts, relativeto estimated prevalence, as illustrated in Figure 3.6b.Figure 3.6b District of residence profile of substance misuse referrals 2008/09 23918%1%17%9%8%11%17%19%AshfieldBassetlawBroxtoweGedlingMansfieldN/ANewark and SherwoodRushcliffeSource: National Drug Treatment monitoring system (NTA)green reports 2008/09 [Due to potential confusion withcolours in this diagram, the vertical order of categories inthe key on the right hand side is the same as the clockwiseorder of the individual pie chart sections, working from thetop]The 2010/11 young people’s specialist substance misuse treatment plan for Nottinghamshire identified interestingdata from local services focusing on localities and substance use, in particular where there remains a low number ofreferrals from districts contrary to deprivation levels and estimated prevalence of substance use (data relates to237 Caution should be exercised when using Tellus 4 data. Although the Department for Education regard the data as statistically valid, it shouldbe noted that only 21 schools in Nottinghamshire responded (488 primary pupils and 972 secondary pupils) to the survey. Nottinghamshire’sfull Tellus 4 results can be accessed at http://www.Tellussurvey.org.uk/Reports/Reports.aspx. Tellus is being discontinued so we will be unableto identify further trend data.238 Nottinghamshire JSNA 2010239 National Drug Treatment monitoring system (NTA) green reports 2008/09144

service data from 2009/10) 240 . The Nottinghamshire Young People’s Specialist Treatment Plan 2010/11 identifiedthat:Ashfield – Based on the percentage of young people living in poverty, there would be an expectation to see morechildren and young people affected by someone else’s substance use accessing services. Ashfield had the secondhighest number of looked after children with substance misuse issues. There are also the second highest number ofchildren subject to a child protection plan with substance misuse issues. The locality accounted for over a fifth of allyoung people admitted to hospital through alcohol attributable admission types – the second highest across thecounty and the highest number of females. The majority of youth and alcohol related anti‐social behaviour incidentsoccurred in Ashfield.Bassetlaw – had the highest number of drug/alcohol related exclusions from schools, and the highest number ofyoung people admitted to hospital with alcohol attributable admission types. In addition, there were the secondhighest number of youth and alcohol related anti‐social behaviour incidents.Broxtowe – Based on young people living in poverty, there would be an expectation to see more children and youngpeople affected by someone else’s substance use in contact with specialist services.Gedling – saw a slight increase in referrals to specialist services since the previous year. Anecdotal evidencesuggests engagement of schools by substance use services is weak. Gedling has the least number of referrals toWAM? (‘What about me?’ ‐ a service for young people affected by someone else’s substance misuse). Yet based onchild poverty levels in some areas, there would be an expectation to greater numbers of referrals.Mansfield – Based on child poverty levels in Mansfield, there would be an expectation to see more children andyoung people affected by someone else’s use in contact with specialist treatment services. Mansfield has the lowestnumber of drug/alcohol related exclusions from school, but the highest number of exclusions recorded as “other”.Mansfield also had the highest level of young people engaged with substance use services who are either of no fixedabode or living in unsettled accommodation. Mansfield also has the highest level of alcohol related crimes.Newark and Sherwood – The majority of referrals to specialist treatment were from Castle Ward within the district,accounting for nearly a quarter of all referrals from Newark and Sherwood. Newark and Sherwood also had thesecond highest level of alcohol related crime amongst young people, with Castle Ward being identified as the wardwith highest levels across all Nottinghamshire wards.Rushcliffe – There were a disproportionate amount of young women identified as NEET with substance misuseproblems. Rushcliffe also had the second highest number of drug/alcohol related exclusions from schools acrossdistricts. The district has the lowest levels of youth and alcohol related anti‐social behaviour incidents.The majority of referrals to young people’s specialist substance misuse services are still through the criminal justiceroute and evidence suggests that more young people would benefit from, and should be receiving, earlierinterventions (in universal and targeted health and education settings, for instance).Young people in contact with the criminal justice system are at particular risk of substance use. Nationally, over 50%of young offenders in custody reported Class A drug use in the past year, among the highest for any at risk group.Each stage of the youth justice system provides an opportunity to identify children and young people, who have, orare at risk of developing, drug misuse problems, assessing their needs, and directing them to appropriate supportand treatment services. Youth offending teams and juvenile custodial units already have systems in place.Drug and alcohol use is linked to crime and offending behaviours which can stunt young people’s employmentprospects and, in turn, increase the risk of poverty. Young people’s substance misuse and offending are oftenrelated and share some of the same causes, with 41% of the young people seeking support for drug or alcohol240 2010/11 Young people’s specialist substance misuse treatment plan, Nottinghamshire DAAT145

misuse also being within the youth justice system 241 . It is also known that in Nottinghamshire, of the young peoplethat do re‐offend, there are clear links with substance use and drug dependency.Using information from Nottinghamshire Police, it is known that in 2008/09 there were a total of 2,526 anti‐socialbehaviour incidents recorded as youth and alcohol related. These accounted for a third of all alcohol‐related antisocialbehaviour incidents. There were a total of 187 offences committed by under‐18 year olds where alcohol wasrecorded as a factor 242 . Table 3.6c shows the distribution of alcohol related youth anti‐social behaviour acrossNottinghamshire and Table 3.6d shows the top 15 wards within the county.Table 3.6c Number of alcohol related youth anti‐social behaviour incidents in Nottinghamshire (2008/09)DistrictTotalAshfield 533Bassetlaw 476Broxtowe 265Gedling 222Mansfield 466Newark & Sherwood 398Rushcliffe 166Source: Nottinghamshire Police, Police National Computer/Anti‐Social Behaviour DatabaseTable 3.6d Distribution of alcohol related youth anti‐social behaviour incidents in Nottinghamshire (2008/09) 243Ward NameTotalSutton In Ashfield East 88Sutton In Ashfield Central 87Worksop East 84Hucknall East 66Worksop North West 59Worksop North East 54Worksop South East 51Ollerton Ward 50Cotgrave 47Sutton In Ashfield North 47Worksop North 47Balderton West Ward 44Carlton 43Eastwood South 42Kirkby In Ashfield East 41Source: Nottinghamshire Police, Police National Computer/Anti‐Social Behaviour Database, 2010The three ward areas highlighted in red on the map are Sutton in Ashfield East, Sutton in Ashfield Central andWorksop East.Persistent non‐attenders and school excludees are also at particular risk of substance misuse and poverty. Thereare higher rates of drug misuse among persistent non‐attenders and excludees. Drug misuse assessments andappropriate interventions should be conducted with school excludees in all alternative provision settings, includingpupil referral units. Similarly, systems should be put in place so that all persistent non‐attenders have a full241 National Treatment Agency internal data (from 2009)242 Nottinghamshire JSNA September 2010243 Nottinghamshire Police, Police National Computer/Anti‐Social Behaviour Database, 2010146

assessment of need, including drug misuse problems, and receive appropriate support with the aim of returningthem to mainstream education.In Nottinghamshire, the Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT) commission a local drug service, ‘Face it’, to offercontracted sessions in schools with children and young people at risk of exclusions from a drug or alcohol issue.Young people can opt in to engage with these sessions and if they complete a programme of work can prevent beingexcluded from school. Drug and alcohol related school exclusions have been declining in Nottinghamshire.Exclusions from school directly related to and recorded as drug/alcohol incidents have decreased inNottinghamshire. However, nearly a quarter of all exclusions are referred to as “other” and this figure may hide thereal number of drug/alcohol related exclusions. Table 3.6e shows the proportion of all exclusions that were relatedto drug and/or alcohol in 2008/09.Table 3.6e Exclusions relating to drug and/or alcohol misuse (2008/09)Primary exclusion reason Drug and/or alcohol OtherAshfield 0.9% 18.5%Bassetlaw 3.1% 30.5%Broxtowe 1.7% 18.8%Gedling 0.8% 16.6%Mansfield 0.7% 32.7%Newark & Sherwood 2.9% 25.9%Rushcliffe 3.0% 19.6%Source: DCSF, exclusions data 2008/09Looked after children are also at particular risk. It is vital that all looked after children with substance misuseproblems are identified early through their health assessment, looked after children reviews and care planningprocesses, and receive support and appropriate interventions as a result. In Nottinghamshire, ‘Face it’ carries outassessments for all young people entering and leaving care to maximise their support package and their existinghealth assessment.Children of problem drug users are also at great risk of substance misuse. Hidden Harm, the report issued by theAdvisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 children in England andWales have one or both parents with serious drug problems. A third of the adult treatment (drug or alcohol)population have parental responsibility for a child 244 . Parental drug problems are associated with a range of pooroutcomes for children and young people, including early drug misuse. Adult drug services and early support services,such as Sure Start, play a key role.Poverty should not be a barrier for children and young people accessing drug and alcohol services. ‘Head to Head’and ‘Face It’ offer assertive outreach services and will engage young people not accessing mainstream services,including those not in schools. We do know, however, that not all organisations will refer or signpost young peopleinto drug and alcohol services, as can be evidenced by the low referrals from districts, where young people’s druguse is an issue. Young people also self‐refer into local drug and alcohol services. Local services are promoted via thenational FRANK website and helpline, local service promotion and through the Common Assessment Framework(CAF) service database, available via the Children’s Trust website.There has been a significant increase in the number of children with substance misusing parents locally in recentyears. Using the formula from the Hidden Harm Report 2003, the Nottinghamshire DAAT estimates that up to 4,266children and young people are affected by parental illicit drug use across the county, and between 13,271 and21,565 are affected by parental problematic alcohol use.“WAM?” (the local service for children affected by parental substance use) had one to one contact in 2008/09 with310 children and young people, an increase of 30% from the previous year. The majority of those were children and244 National Treatment Agency Media Release (2009) – ‘Moves to provide greater protection to children living with drug addicts’147

young people concerned about someone else’s alcohol use. 82% of young people left the service in a planned way,which is a positive increase on the previous year (53%) and significantly above national targets (70%).Drug and alcohol dependence is a key cause of inter‐generational poverty and unemployment. For example, inEngland, an estimated 80% of heroin or crack cocaine users are on benefits, often for many years, and their drug usepresents a significant barrier to employment 245 . It is important therefore for adult drug services to identify parentsand support them on a range of outcomes, including employment. Data from adult services regarding the supportgiven to service users who are parents was not available for this needs assessment.3.7 How do poor children perform in schools and what could be done better?14,463 school pupils are eligible for free school meals (FSM) in Nottinghamshire, 12.55% of the whole schoolpopulation. The highest numbers are in Ashfield and Mansfield districts. 2009/10 provisional GCSE results show that19.1% of pupils eligible for FSM achieved 5+ A*‐C grades (including English & maths) in Nottinghamshire. Thiscompares with a 2009/10 provisional result of 55.1% for non‐FSM pupils (NI 75).The achievement gap between pupils eligible for FSM and their peers at both Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 haswidened over the last 12 months by 4.4% and 3.2% respectively, to 27.7% and 35.9% (NI 102a & b). There is anawareness of gaps in achievement and a range of two year programmes are currently in place in schools, targeted atnarrowing the gaps. It is anticipated that these will help to address the issue by the end of next academic year.NI 92 measures the gap between the lowest achieving 20% in the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile and the rest.While it does not specifically measure deprivation gaps, the majority of the lowest 20% are located within the 30%most deprived Super Output Areas. The local authority continues to identify Mansfield, Ashfield and Bassetlaw as theareas of greatest need and, where targeted interventions have taken place, such as in the Ravensdale and ForestTown areas, improved outcomes have been seen.3.8 Can we explain the trends in attendance, attainment and exclusions?Absence from school ‐ Pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) are more likely to miss school than those who areineligible (Table 3.8a). Overall absence in primary schools for FSM pupils in 2009/10 was 7.43% (compared to 4.51%non‐FSM) and in secondary schools it stood at 11.79% (compared to 5.96% non‐FSM). FSM unauthorised absencerates were 4.4 times higher in primary schools than non‐FSM and 2.7 times higher in secondary schools. Persistentabsenteeism was also considerably higher (7.81% FSM compared to 1.85% non‐FSM, all ages).Table 3.8a Absence in Nottinghamshire schools by free school meal (FSM) eligibility (school year 2009/10)FSM Status% AuthorisedAbsence% UnauthorisedAbsence% OverallAbsence% PersistentAbsenteesPrimary SchoolsNon‐FSM 4.11% 0.40% 4.51% 0.87%FSM 5.69% 1.74% 7.43% 3.92%Secondary SchoolsNon‐FSM 4.53% 1.43% 5.96% 2.92%FSM 6.56% 5.23% 11.79% 13.07%All SchoolsNon‐FSM 4.31% 0.89% 5.20% 1.85%FSM 6.06% 3.24% 9.30% 7.81%Source: 2010 School Census245 Hay, G. and Bauld, L. (2008) Population estimates of problematic drug users in England who access DWP benefits: a feasibility study. DWPWorking Paper No. 46. Department for Work and Pensions; and Hay, G. and Bauld, L. (forthcoming in 2010) Population estimates of alcoholmisusers who access DWP benefits. DWP Working Paper No. 94. Department for Work and Pensions148

School exclusions12.5% of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) were excluded from school in Nottinghamshire in 2009/10,compared to 3.3% of non‐eligible pupils (Table 3.8b & Figure 3.8c). In addition, pupils eligible for FSM are over fourtimes more likely to be permanently excluded from school than the rest of the school population ‐ 34 in every 10,000pupils eligible for FSM were permanently excluded from school in 2009/10, compared to eight in every 10,000 pupilsnot eligible. Eligible pupils accounted for 35% of all exclusions in Nottinghamshire in 2009/10.Table 3.8b Exclusions in Nottinghamshire schools by FSM eligibility 2009/10FSM eligibilityFixed 1‐5daysPercentage of school populationFixed 6‐15daysFixed 16‐45 days Permanent TotalPercentageNottinghamshire Eligible 11.6 0.42 0.03 0.34 12.5 35.2Non‐eligible 3.1 0.10 0.01 0.08 3.3 64.8Total 4.2 0.14 0.01 0.12 4.5 100.0Source: Capita One, 2010Figure 3.8c Exclusions by Free School Meal Eligibility 2007‐2010Permanent exclusions by FSM eligibilityFixed period exclusions by FSM eligibility0.6180.516140.4120.31080.2640.1202007/08 2008/09 2009/1002007/08 2008/09 2009/10EligibleNottinghamshireNon‐eligibleEnglandSource: Capita One, 2010Nottinghamshire does not use Contextual Value Added (CVA) to measure the performance of children given theirlevel of poverty. Nottinghamshire does have CVA groups around descriptors such as special educational needs (SEN)and FSM, and these scores are a proxy for poverty.149

3.9 What do we know about the relationship with poverty and crime? (CYP as victims and offenders)Between January and December 2009, there were a total of 2062 young people in the youth justice system. 72.9%were boys (1,503) compared to 27.1% girls (559). The higher numbers lived in the north of the county (Figure 3.12a),most notably in Mansfield (416, or 20% of the total county number). Figure 3.12b shows that the highest proportionof serious crime in 2009 was committed, however, in Ashfield.Figure 3.9a Numbers of young people in the Youth Justice System by districtNumber of young people in the Youth JusticeSystem (Jan - Dec 2009)450400350300250200150100500FemaleMaleTotalAshfieldBassetlawBroxtoweGedlingMansfieldNewark & SherwoodRushcliffeSource: Youth Offending Service, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2010Figure 3.9b Gravity of offences committed between October and December 200960Count of Client count50403020ofty Offence Gravity1 (Least serious)2345678 (Most serious)100Ashfield Bassetlaw Broxtowe Gedling Mansfield Newark &SherwoodOtherRushcliffeCDRPSource: Youth Offending Service, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2010Provisional data as of November 2010 on first time entrants to the youth justice system shows a reduction of 43.3%reduction on the baseline (459 entrants compared to 688 in 2007/08). Provisional recidivism (re‐offending) data forthe same period shows a re‐offending frequency of 0.4 offences per 1000 offenders, compared with 0.58 in Quarter2 of the baseline year (2005). Ashfield has been the most improved area over the last 12 months and is maintaininggood performance.150

The total black & minority ethnic (BME) numbers in the youth justice system are broadly comparable with thegeneral population, although there is an over‐representation of young black men, particularly in the custodialpopulation.Figure 3.9c Total reported Crime in Nottinghamshire 2008 246Children of prisoners ‐ In 2007, a national government review confirmed that children of prisoners are an ‘invisible’group 247 . There is no reliable, routinely recorded information on who they are, little awareness of their needs and nosystematic support. It is estimated that 7% of youngsters will see a parent imprisoned during their school years 248and about 160,000 children a year will have a parent sent to custody 249 . Based on projected prison population246 The Condition of Nottinghamshire 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council247 DCSF and Ministry of Justice Children of Offenders Review June 2007248 Shaw, R. (1992) Prisoners’ Children: What are the issues? (Ed.) London: Routledge249 Home Office 2005151

growth, this group of children is set to rise to 200,000 in the next five years. Given the over‐representation of blackand minority ethnic groups in prisons, it would be logical to assume that this translates to the children of prisonersgroup. Statistics relating to the children of prisoners include:• 65% of boys with a convicted parent go on to offend 250• Boys with a convicted father are 3.3 times more at risk of being convicted of a crime than thosewith a non‐convicted father• Children of prisoners have three times the risk of mental health problems and of antisocial/delinquentbehaviour compared to their peers 251• Children of prisoners are at risk of poorer Every Child Matters outcomes• Children of prisoners are often subject to unstable care arrangements 252• Children of prisoners experience higher levels of social disadvantage than their peers 253 andstigma, bullying and teasing 254• 25% of men in young offender institutes are, or are shortly to become, fathers 255• More than 60% of women prisoners are mothers and 45% had children living with them at thetime of imprisonment 256 . Only 5% of women prisoners’ children remain in their own home oncetheir mother has been sentenced 257 .While there is a strong correlation between parental imprisonment and poor child outcomes, research does notprove a causal link. There is little conclusive evidence on whether imprisoning parents actually causes theseoutcomes for children, or makes poor outcomes even poorer. Nonetheless, it is clear that children of prisoners are,for multiple reasons, at higher risk than the wider child population and likely to require extensive support.In Nottinghamshire (as well as nationally), there is no robust data on this group and information is patchy. We do notknow who is a child of a prisoner, where they live or which services they are currently accessing. We have no pictureof the current demand for support, prisons are not required to gather data on which prisoners have dependentchildren and we do not know how many children are in care as a result of the imprisonment of their primary carer. If,as cited above, 7% of youngsters will see a parent imprisoned during their school years, this equates toapproximately 9,000 children and young people in Nottinghamshire 258 .The Nottinghamshire Probation Service is unable to link specific children with adult offenders via their systems, thisis an issue they have raised with the national leads on numerous occasions, and is being debated and considered intheir development of the Probation Service’s Safeguarding Children Policy.Data from children’s centres gives a snapshot of children under five in the county, and as of February 2010, therewere 34 children registered with a children’s centre who had a parent in prison. However, this is only a glimpse ofthe real picture.Systematic collection of data on the children of prisoners would ensure that they are identified at the earliestopportunity and their needs (as well as the needs of the remaining carer) are addressed. Using parental entry intoprison to trigger a process which enables the secure sharing of relevant information between agencies andsystematic assessment and support of the child, combined with a ‘Think Family’ approach, would maximiseoutcomes for both the child and the family.250 Social Exclusion Unit Report (2002) Reducing the risk of re‐offending by ex‐prisoners251 Murray J (2007) Research on the effects of parental imprisonment on children (section of Social Care Institute for Excellence report writtenby Joseph Murray, not published)252 Phillips, Susan D. et al. (2006) Disentangling the risks: parent criminal justice involvement and children’s exposure to family risks.Criminology & Public Policy253 Murray, J. and Farrington, D. (2005) Parental imprisonment: effects on boys’ anti‐social behaviour and delinquency through the life‐course.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46: 1269‐1278254 Boswell, G. and Wedge, P. (2002) Imprisoned Fathers and their Children. London: Jessica Kingsley255 Inside Fatherhood, a guide to giving inmates, children and partners a fresh start (Fathers Direct, 2004) commissioned by the Offenders’Learning and Skills Unit, DfES256 Wolfe, T. Counting the Cost: the social and financial implications of women’s imprisonment (1999)257 Baroness Corston ‐ A review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system (Home Office 2007)258 Nottinghamshire JSNA 2010 Nottinghamshire County Council152

Data from Nottinghamshire Probation Service indicates that at any one time in Nottinghamshire, there areapproximately 3,000 offenders supervised in the community on community orders or on release from custody (thecaseload in Nottingham City is approximately 2,600). Adults released from prison sentences of less than 12 monthsare not currently supervised by the Probation Service.A Ministry of Justice needs analysis for the five National Offender Management East Midlands Region Areas foundhigh levels of most needs associated with offending in Nottinghamshire, particularly education, training andemployment, and thinking and behaviour (both 59% of offenders supervised). Rates for other factors were:relationships 47%, lifestyle and associates 45%, emotional well‐being 44%, alcohol misuse 43%, accommodation38%, attitudes 37%, drug misuse 31%, and financial management 26%. Needs are typically multiple with the averagebeing four types of need for each offender on supervision. 53% of offenders are unemployed 259 .Most recent figures for supervised offenders in Nottinghamshire show that 10.85% reoffend within three months ofthe snapshot, against a rate predicted on the basis of relevant factors, e.g. age and gender, of 11.94%, a differenceof ‐9%. The actual rate of reoffending is higher than that for England and Wales at 9.7%. Those under 22 are twice aslikely to reoffend as older offenders. Particularly high levels of reoffending occur in young people in Mansfield andAshfield (22%) and Bassetlaw, Newark and Sherwood (14%). Female offenders account for 10% of the caseload andtheir reoffending rates are similar to those of male offenders. For those who reoffend, the levels of offending‐relatedneed are greater in most cases than for those who do not reoffend. Levels of need among those who reoffend are:Thinking and behaviour 96%Lifestyle and associates 74.5%Attitudes 60.4%Finance 56.4%Drugs 55.7%Alcohol 49%General health 49%Relationships 47.7%Education/employment 45%Emotional well‐being 44.8%Accommodation 34.9%Data from the Youth Offending Service (YOS) ASSET 260 shows that young people involved in the YOS, and thereforethose already offending, face a number of risk factors for poverty including homelessness, unsuitableaccommodation and substance use. Table 3.9d shows the numbers of young people for each Crime and DrugsPartnership (CDRP) area and the risk factors they are facing. It is important to note, however, that some youngpeople may be included in Table 3.9d more than once because they may face a number of risk factors. The main riskfactors facing young people in this group were substance use, a lack of legitimate personal income, followed by livingin ‘deprived accommodation’. There is a particular issue for many young people regarding their parents ‐ thisincludes parental substance use, poor mental health, or loss of contact. Parental issues account for the greatest riskfactor across all districts with the exception of Newark and Sherwood.259 Nottinghamshire Probation Service 2010260 A scoring system based on factors in the life of a young offender, used to predict the likelihood of re‐offending153

Table 3.9d Identified needs of Young People accessing the Youth Offending ServiceCDRPNo Fixed Unsuitable DeprivedSchoolsAbode Accom AccomExclusionsLack oflegitimatepersonalincomeSubstanceUseParentalIssueAll CommStart ASSETsAshfield X x 20 15 27 29 32 56Bassetlaw 0 x 34 29 23 40 45 77Broxtowe 0 x 16 13 10 14 26 47Gedling X x 10 14 9 14 23 39Mansfield 0 x 32 21 34 46 47 91Newark & Sherwood x x 14 28 15 47 37 80Rushcliffe 0 0 9 7 9 13 24 37Other 0 0 13 14 10 24 11 27Grand Total 7 10 148 141 137 227 245 454Source: Youth Offending Service, 2010Note: where there are less than five young people in a category, numbers have been suppressed to ensure confidentialityThe Newark and Sherwood Youth Inclusion and Support Panel (YISP) stresses the importance of working inpartnership with parents in their ‘one to one’ work with young people:“Parents and young people have said how much they have felt valued and listened to because of this [partnership]approach… [and] this is the first time they have received support of this nature … the regular reviews with parentsand young people have reassured them that they are being listened to and that their priorities are being addressed.The review process focuses on the strengths and the positives in the family and works creatively to reach positiveoutcomes. Parents and young people have reflected this in their feedback to workers and following closure throughthe evaluation process. Parents have said that they have valued the support they have received and have benefitedfrom the positive relationship with workers who have “gone the extra mile” with the family 261 .”The Ashfield Specialist Parenting Practitioner (SPP) is a qualified social worker seconded from NottinghamshireCounty Council’s Children’s Services team into Ashfield’s Community Safety Partnership (CSP). The role wasestablished in July 2007 and is funded by the Department for Education through the ‘Think Family’ grant’ for thepurpose of supporting and challenging parents of children and young people at risk of, or who are engaging in, antisocialbehaviour.The vast majority of families are a source of strength and protection and yet families can also face challenges.Poverty, unemployment, childhood abuse, poor mental health, substance abuse, domestic abuse or contact with thecriminal justice system can cast a shadow that spans whole lifetimes and passes down the generations. Such familyexperiences can limit aspiration, reinforce cycles of poverty and provide poor models of behaviour which impact ona child’s development and well‐being, bringing significant costs for public services and the wider community. Theydamage the ability of children to build up resilience to problems or to benefit from opportunities.The ‘Strengthening Families Programme 10‐14 UK’ aims to break this cycle, by improving the effectiveness of thefamily as a unit and providing an opportunity for positive growth, not just for the individual but for the widercommunity. The programme brings families and communities together to address the problems that they facewithin their families and from their local community. Not only are families supported in tackling these issues and inachieving positive change, but they are encouraged to form support networks that will sustain these changes.SFP 10‐14 UK is a vehicle for collaboration and creative partnership working in addressing a number of cross‐cuttingthemes, such as alcohol and drug prevention, reduction of occurrences and cycles of anti‐social behaviour,strengthening parent‐child relationships, increasing parenting skills and youth pro‐social skills development.261 Nicholas P (2010) ‘Parents as Partners: Early Intervention Projects April‐June 2010’154

Therefore, due to the preventative nature of the programme, it is able to offer a provision that can cut down oncosts that families would incur from service providers such as social care, education, the police and health services.Based on a government costing tool, the projected cost avoidances for the 52 families who have attended thestrengthening families programme in Ashfield between July 2008 and July 2010 is £4,244,448 over their families’lifetimes. The total cost of running the ten Strengthening Families Programmes 10‐14 UK, which catered for these52 families, is approximately £17,000 (excluding staffing costs) 262 .SFP 10‐14 UK in Ashfield has catered for high risk families with complex needs and the families have been referredfor reasons such as problems with school (truancy, exclusion, difficult behaviour management issues), anti‐socialbehaviour in the community, complex family needs open to social care interventions, poor parental supervision ofyouth, aggression of youth, issues relating to autistic spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disordersand other issues relating to some of the difficulties in raising teenagers. The average age of young people whoattend SFP 10‐14 is 13, but there is a range of families who attend with their young people aged between 10 and 14.3.10 What do we know about the relationships between poverty and children looked after; and poverty andchildren deemed at risk by social care?Nationally it is known that poor children are more likely to be taken into local authority care 263 . It is also knownnationally that the social patterning of child abuse and neglect is related to the effects of social circumstances onparents and their ability to parent effectively 264 ; poor children are more likely to be on the child protection registerthan more privileged children 265 . Despite this, local data is not available to back up these statements. Generallythough, there has been an assumption that if a child is looked after, then they are more likely to be from a deprivedbackground.3.11 What do we know about the relationship between poverty and children living in families characterised bydomestic violence?Domestic violence affects children’s schooling, educational and play opportunities and their friendships. They maytake on more physical or emotional responsibility for family members or household tasks and very little is knownfrom research about the long term effects of domestic violence, although it has been estimated that children whohave witnessed domestic violence are 2.5 times more likely to develop serious social and behavioural problems thanother children 266 . They are also more likely to be perpetrators or victims of domestic violence as adults 267 .People living in poor households and financially insecure households were more likely to suffer from domesticviolence. However, the correlation between poverty and domestic violence does not mean that domestic violence isnot found in better off households as well 268 .A local domestic violence worker from Rushcliffe highlighted during the development of this needs assessment that“Working women are particularly overlooked...they have no access to Legal Aid, so if they wish to get an injunction orneed to determine safe child contact through the courts they face large regular bills for legal help/advice, or theyhave to go it alone and represent themselves. If they represent themselves, the complexity of financial arrangementscan be overwhelming, especially for lone parents, having to go to court several times in a short period of time andhopefully having a sympathetic employer who continues to allow time off to do this ‐ or you use your annual leave up262 Timms H (2010) ‘Bringing Families Together in Ashfield ‐ Strengthening Families Programme 10‐14UK proposal for Ashfield CommunitySafety Partnership’263 A Bebbington and J Miles The background of Children who enter Local Authority Care British Journal of Social Work 19, 1989 pp349‐68264 N Baldwin and NJ Spencer Deprivation and Child Abuse: implications for strategic planning in children’s services. Children and Society 7,1993, pp357‐75265 P Sidebottom, et al Child maltreatment in the “Children of the nineties” deprivation, class, and social networks in a UK sample. Child Abuseand Neglect 2002 Dec; 26 (12): pp1243‐59266 Wolfe, D. et al. Child Witnesses to Violence between Parents: Critical Issues in Behavioural and Social Adjustment, Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology 14 (1), 95‐104, 1986267 Whitfield, C. et al. Violent Childhood Experiences and the Risk of Intimate Partner Violence as Adults, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 18(2), 166‐185, 2003268 Mirrlees‐Black, British Crime Survey 1999155

attending court dates and have no time off during school holidays, so have to pay for childcare which you can’tafford”.Domestic violence can lead to poverty as it makes it more difficult for women to hold down jobs and can increase illhealth. Furthermore, unemployment and lack of economic resources may make it harder for them to leave a violentpartner. Broxtowe Women’s Aid has identified additional poverty related outcomes for families including:• When a parent and children leave a perpetrator, they often have to leave their home and they lose theirbelongings. There is usually financial upheaval of having to leave their home.• There is an impact on a child’s emotional health ‐ they often have to experience conflict and experienceunstable home life, often in and out of temporary accommodation.• Children who are verbally or physically abused by perpetrators often experience fear and aggression, whichcan affect their education and career prospects.• Some families also experience drug or alcohol misuse, creating further challenges.• Many women have to move from the area that they live – often they will have to go to an area completelyunknown to them, and if it is to a local authority property, quite often it is in an area that is categorised asdeprived. Women who may have previously been in an ‘owner occupier’ status may find themselves insocial housing and claiming benefits to survive.• Often women will also have debts that the perpetrator has accrued, including rent arrears if they have beenin a joint tenant property 269 .“I would consider that every family who is impacted by domestic violence and where the abuser is no longer in thehome faces severe financial detriment and often poverty. Women and children are overwhelmingly affected by thefinancial fallout of domestic violence ‐ this is supported by statistics and research also done into men's experience ofdomestic abuse.Abusers refuse to pay anything towards their children if their partner has left them in the hope that a financialstruggle will force them back. Or they will only pay a share to support children as long as their partner complies withdemands that they be allowed contact (this stipulation is held over survivors even when social care has told mum thatdad can’t have contact).Many mothers do feel ashamed about having to claim benefits when they have previously worked and they do notwant the stigma of claiming free school meals (and their children, particularly teenagers, have asked mum not to godown this route).” Local domestic violence workerThe following case studies provide an insight into how domestic violence is linked to poor outcomes for children andparents.Broxtowe Women’s AidWe are currently supporting a woman with six children who left her financially, emotionally and psychologicallyabusive partner. When they were together, the perpetrator controlled all the money and did not allow the woman weare supporting to have any. If the children asked her for something she always had to tell them to go to their dad,which sent out the message to the children that their dad could provide for them and their mum couldn’t. He paid allthe bills, kept all the money that he earned and kept her in the dark about exactly how much money the family had.The financial abuse has continued since the woman separated from her partner because she is reliant on themaintenance payments that he makes to support her children. Because she has never been allowed to develop anymoney management skills, she is struggling to cope with the demands of living on her own with her children. Anagreement was made between her and her ex‐partner to exclude the Child Support Agency and arrange formaintenance payments between them, but he has refused to keep to his side of the bargain and has repeatedly notsupplied payments when he was supposed to.269 Broxtowe Women’s Aid 2010156

This prevents the woman from buying things that the children really need, and it also prevents them from doingactivities together. The children are effectively being forced to live a deprived existence by the actions of their father.Broxtowe Women’s AidWe are also supporting a woman who has been with her financially abusive husband for many years. She briefly lefther husband but has now gone back to him. Throughout their marriage he has only provided the woman with a setsmall amount of money with which to buy essentials for her and her children. With the money he gave her he used tospecify exactly what she could and could not buy, and as a result her children suffered by not having many of thethings that other children take for granted.Now that her children have left home and had grandchildren, the woman is still subjected to financial abuse becauseher husband does not allow her to spend any more than £5 per child on special occasions (for example birthdays,Christmas). Because of his actions, her grandchildren are now suffering in a similar way to her children when theywere growing up.In Bassetlaw in the last two years there have been significant rises (40%) in reported domestic violence and childabuse. Some of the increase may be due to better reporting, but rises have been linked to unemployment. Thehospitals are directly involved through accident & emergency departments. NHS Bassetlaw provides support tochildren directly and through funded services. This includes support to social work staff in Women’s Aid and fundinga children’s outreach worker.In terms of specialist support to children affected by domestic violence, Table 3.11a shows that 318 children in thecounty attended specialist one to one outreach or group work programmes between April and September 2009, 19of whom were from a Black and Ethnic Minority background and 36 of whom had a disability. 116 further childrenreceived support while living in a refuge. In addition to those receiving direct support, 1,223 pupils across the countyparticipated in school awareness programmes, as well as a similar number who participated in similar programmesprovided by Nottinghamshire Domestic Violence Forum and others.Table 3.11a Children attending specialist domestic violence services in Nottinghamshire (April – September 2009)DataApril‐ NotesSeptember20091 Number of children who attended specialist 1:1 outreachservices and or group work programmes3182 Number of children referred to the Specialist Service byNottinghamshire County Council Social Care79 Number of children counted in section 1(above) referred by Social Care3 Number of children withBME heritage19 Number of BME children counted insection 1 (above)4 Number of children with disability or impairment, includinglearning disability36 Number of disabled children counted insection 1 (above)5 Number of children who were supported whilst living inrefuge116 Not including those counted in section 1(above)6 Number of children who participated in schools awarenessprogrammes 270 1,223 Not including those counted in section 1(above)TOTAL 1,657Source: Safer Communities, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2010270 A similar number of children have also participated in schools awareness programmes provided by Nottinghamshire Domestic ViolenceForum and others157

3.12 Does Nottinghamshire provide services for children of incapacity benefits claimants?Children with one or more disabled adults have a 30% chance of being in relative poverty 271 so it is important forNottinghamshire to have services and interventions in place to support parents and children reliant on incapacitybenefits. There are a number of services available in Nottinghamshire that work with children of parents onincapacity benefits.There do not appear to be many services in Nottinghamshire which offer direct support to the children of disabledparents. Children’s centres, however, work with parents who have disabilities. The following graph (Figure 3.12)shows the number of parents claiming Disability Living Allowance (DLA) by children’s centre area in September 2009.However, across all children’s centres only 57 parents claiming DLA were seen between August 2009 and September2010, representing 0.10% of all parents claiming DLA who have children under the age of five. More needs to bedone to gather improved data as well as additional outreach work by children’s centres to engage disabled parents.Figure 3.12a Total Number of Parents Claiming Disability Living Allowance, August 2009 ‐ September 2010Source: Nottinghamshire Children’s Centres, November 2010[The number of disabled parents seen refers to carers who have claimed that they are disabled on their children centre registration form.Registration details are not updated on a regular basis so data is not exact. Data is unavailable on the total number of parents with under‐fivesclaiming DLA. Total parents claiming DLA represents all ages 16+.]In addition, the County Council’s Adult Social Care and Health Department offers assistance to disabled parents intheir parenting role. This assistance is not tied in any way to the parent's disability benefit entitlement, rather to thefact that they are eligible to have a community care assessment because they have a permanent and substantialdisability and, in addition, they need assistance in their parenting role. This is very relevant for young carers who arein the position of providing care to their disabled parent or relative. The support planning process that followsassessment should allow, with discussion and agreement of family members, for the young carer's tasks to bearranged and provided for through alternative help purchased by means of a personal budget, thus relieving theyoung carer of inappropriate caring responsibilities.The Nottinghamshire self directed support assessment (SDSA) contains questions across 13 areas, each assessedarea identifying the amount of unpaid support (informal care) the person may be receiving. This includes care from ayoung carer in the family. The intention is to ensure that the informal care being provided is realistic and sustainable.Additionally, question 12 in the SDSA specifically asks about needs arising from "Being a Parent". It aims to identifywhat support disabled parents may need from adult social services in order for them to fulfil their role andresponsibilities as a parent.271 Households Below Average Income 2008/2009 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai158

3.13 Does Nottinghamshire provide services for disabled children and their parents/carers?National research 272 shows that disabled children are more likely to live in poverty:• The income of families with disabled children averages £15,270, 23.5% below the UK mean income of£19,968, and 21.8% have incomes that are less than half the UK mean• Only 16% of mothers with disabled children work, compared to 61% of other mothers• It costs up to three times as much to raise a disabled child, as it does to raise a child without disabilities• Childcare costs around £5.50 per hour for a disabled child, compared to around £3.50 for other children• With lower than average incomes and higher than average expenditure, many families with disabled childrenare in debt. 22.6% have debts up to £5,000, 15.7% have debts of up to £10,000 and only 15.7% have nodebts. In the general population, 53% have no debts• Families with disabled children spend £27.61 on loan repayments a week, compared to the UK average of£3.10• Only 8% of families get services from their local social services.Children and young people with complex health needs often access a number of different services. The map inFigure 3.13a shows the location of providers of residential short breaks accessed by children and young people wholive in Nottinghamshire, including those outside of the county. Short breaks provided in the home and communityare not shown on this map, although children and young people included in this data collection may be accessingthese services.The number of children and young people accessing these services varies by locality and it is unclear whether thisrelates to parent/carer knowledge of the range of services, geographical location of services or other more complexmechanisms. It is unlikely, however, that the numbers of children and young people accessing services as apercentage of the population relates to the incidence of disability in that locality. It is possible that those who arethe most in need of services are the least likely to access them due to the ‘inverse care law’ 273 , which suggests thatthose living in areas of deprivation find it more challenging to access services and thus receive fewer services thantheir more affluent counterparts, despite having equivalent needs.272Contact a Family (http://www.cafamily.org.uk/professionals/research/statistics.html) [Accessed January 2010]273 Appleby and Deeming (2001) ‘Inverse Care Law’ Health Service Journal159

Figure 3.13a Location of providers of specialist short breaks for patients in NottinghamshireSource: Health Needs Assessment, NHS Nottinghamshire County 2009/10[Number of children and young people accessing specialist services by home postcode]Nottinghamshire has been a ‘Short Breaks Pathfinder’ since April 2008. Short breaks provide opportunities fordisabled children and young people to spend time away from their primary carers. They provide an essential chancefor carers to recharge their batteries and to allow disabled children and young people the experience of newrelationships, environments and positive activities. A short break may include day, evening, overnight or weekendactivities and can take place at home, at an approved carer’s home or in a residential or community setting.To ensure the right services are developed, engagement has been undertaken with disabled children, young peopleand their families by organising consultation events and fun days. This has helped to identify what services arealready being provided and where the gaps are. Parents are also involved in a range of working groups to ensuretheir views are heard.Significant progress has been made in developing short break opportunities for disabled children, young peopleand their families including:• Increasing access to direct payments160

• Doubling the number of contract carers• Additional funding to Play and Youth Services to extend provision• Increasing access to 11 th Session for disabled children and young people. Providing a new service offlexible one‐to‐one support for disabled children and young people who do not currently receive any shortbreaks service• Additional funding to increase sitting and befriending service• Additional funding for community holiday and play schemes.Short breaks have increased as follows:Table 3.13b2007/08 2008/09 2009/10Number of children receiving short 860 1297 1776breaksNumber of disabled children 815 963 1010receivingSource: Local Authority Implementation PlanFurther analysis has identified possible gaps in provision 274 . Figure 3.13c overleaf suggests clear differences in shortbreaks provision across the county. In S80 (Worksop area), for instance, there was one child accessing short breakservices for every 40 SEN school pupils. In NG23 (Newark area), on the other hand, there was one child accessingshort break services for every seven SEN pupils.Services are being developed to address gaps and increase provision via an approved provider framework.Nottinghamshire aims to offer disabled children and young people aged 0‐19 years up to 100 hours of flexible shortbreaks from a menu of services. The family may select one or more of the following up to 100 hours:• Sitting and befriending service• Community based holiday play and activity, including the current Breaks in Partnership scheme.274 Not all disabled children have special educational needs, and not all children with special educational needs are necessarily disabled. Thenumber of children with special educational needs, however, acts as a reasonable proxy for demand for short break services.161

Figure 3.13c Number of children accessing short break services as a % of children with special educational needs –Nottinghamshire – Quarter 3 2009/10Source: Short Breaks Pathfinder, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2010The short breaks pathfinder ends on 31 st March 2011, so funding for many of the activities being offered now willnot be available from April 2011. It is currently unclear what services will be in place in the future to supportdisabled children.Play Services290 disabled children have been found holiday play provision by the Breaks in Partnership Project. 77 out of schoolsettings have been supported to include disabled children, who would not get the chance to meet or play with otherchildren from their local communities (as many attend special schools). By virtue of this project, it happens thatmany out of school settings actively improve their inclusive practice in a general sense as well.139 disabled young people aged 13‐25 took part in summer holiday camps supported by the Breaks in PartnershipProject. This funding is being reviewed by Central Government to determine whether it continues into 2011.162

Friends Together in BassetlawParents and families of children with additional needs can feel very isolated and ‘on their own’. Projects play animportant role in breaking down this social isolation, as well as providing parents with practical support andinformation. Feedback from parents included:• “The most chilled social gathering I can go to with my children, knowing they are welcomed and wanted.Genuine friendships for both children and parents are formed…”• “I think it helps keep me sane. With advice on where to access different agencies such as Parent Partnership,benefits and holiday clubs etc. I wouldn’t have accessed these without their help”• “The support groups are caring, I feel supported and valued as a parent and I know I can turn to them if I needany help or support.”3.14 Where are most fire and rescue incidents? Does this relate to levels of poverty? What are we doing whereincidents are highest?Every year in the UK, on average, 400 children under 15 die due to injuries that could be avoided. This makesaccidental injury the biggest single cause of death for this age group. Some 10,000 children are permanentlydisabled, and more than two million children attend hospital due to avoidable injury. Many are not taken to Accidentand Emergency departments, so avoid the statistics. Children from poorer families are five times more likely to dieas a result of injuries as those from a wealthier background.Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service assesses the risk in each district of intentional and accidental dwelling fires.This uses local incident data applied to Experian’s demographic database, ‘Mosaic’. Results for 2009 (Table 3.14a)show a higher than average risk of incidents occurring in homes occupied by low income families. In each districtexcept Broxtowe, there are low income family Mosaic categories in the top three ‘at risk’ groups, between two andsix times more likely to experience fires than expected.Table 3.14a Likelihood of having an intentional or accidental dwelling fire by Mosaic group – top three Mosaicgroups per district (2009) – low income family groups in boldDistrict Mosaic Code Risk IndexAshfield G41 469H47 313F37 234Bassetlaw F37 508G41 496I50 191Source: Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service, 2010Note: The Risk Index indicates the likelihood of aparticular Mosaic type experiencing a dwelling fire,where 100 is an average score. If the Risk Index is 200,this is twice the average. A Risk index score of 469 wouldmean 4.69 more likely than the average, and so on.Broxtowe E34 3787I50 531E33 392Gedling I50 500F37 400H47 300Mansfield F39 556G41 309J53, B13, B10 185Mosaic Codes:D24 – low income families living in cramped Victorianterraced housing in inner city locationsF37 – Young families living in upper floors of socialhousingG41 – Families, many single parents, in deprived socialhousing on the edge of regional centresOther codes mentioned above refer to older people,students etc.Newark & Sherwood F37 576.5I48 538.4F39 313.8Rushcliffe I50, D24 460A03 402D23 345163

Initiatives undertaken by Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service to educate young people include:• RiskWatch Schools Education – this reaches all communities, particularly those communities who aredisadvantaged in child safety education• Boot Camp ‐ gives young people the chance to spend a week of their school holidays at a fire station, joiningin a series of practical and theoretical activities in order to learn about the Fire and Rescue Service.• Bendigo ‐ a seven‐week course to reduce fire crime and anti‐social behaviour by giving vulnerable, hard‐toreach13 – 16‐year‐olds the opportunity to learn about fire safety and take part in practical firefightingactivities alongside a crew of firefighters.• Firesetters ‐ referrals to the Firesetter programme are made when a young person has been caught playingwith fire. When a referral is made, a trained team will visit the person concerned to help him or herunderstand and control their feelings and the circumstances that lead them to set fires.• Duke of Edinburgh ‐ a 12‐week course which gives young people an opportunity to gain more understandingof the role of the Fire and Rescue Service.• Fire Safe ‐ a 10‐session one‐to‐one cognitive behavioural programme aimed at medium/high‐risk offendersaged between 12 and 17 years old.• Work Experience ‐ a week‐long initiative which aims to increase the understanding of a firefighter’s role.• Team Challenge ‐ gives children and young people an active insight into the work of a firefighter, whilstlearning some basic skills for themselves.3.15 What is being done to reduce inequality in outcomes?There are a range of services and interventions in place which aim to reduce inequality.Bassetlaw is included here.One example fromA1 Housing Limited in Bassetlaw employs a Money Advisor who provides a range of assistance to housing tenantsincluding:• Providing financial health checks• Budgeting advice• Increasing benefit take up• Assist in accessing a bank account• Encouraging savingSupport is provided through money advice road shows held across the district. Referrals are made to other agenciesand A1 produces a guidance document on the costs associated with running a home.A community involvement worker is working with the prison services and goes into prisons on family days with aprogramme of activities to encourage dads and children to play together. In the long term, this is preparation fordad returning home as the family has to manage without him whilst he is in prison. On visiting days, they provideplay activities for the children.There are additional examples of strategies and activities which aim to reduce inequalities. Examples of whichinclude:• Closing the gap of educational attainment of children eligible for FSM and their peers.• Tackling health inequalities• Reducing teenage conceptions.3.16 Are the families engaging with the services that can offer them support?It is a challenge to identify if families experiencing greatest levels of poverty are accessing services. Service uptakedata varies across organisations as we have seen. For example, it is a challenge to identify if young people fromhouseholds in poverty are accessing apprenticeships. Services need to consider how they identify if those in povertyaccess their provision, such as by identifying postcode data to see if they live in areas of greatest poverty. Identifyingwhich district service users live in is not enough to confirm if families in need are engaging with services.164

Organisations and services which target ‘at risk’ groups and/or areas of greatest disadvantage are more likely towork with households in poverty. However there are still steps that can be taken to carry out further outreach toengage the most disaffected families and children. Children Centres are located in areas of greatest need but haveidentified that they need to reach out further to engage pregnant teenagers and teenage parents who are less likelyto access services for ‘adults’.There are 58 designated Sure Start Children’s Centres in Nottinghamshire, through which children under five andtheir families can access integrated services and information, including early education, support for parents and childand family health services. They enable families to have access to high quality and flexible childcare places.14,207 families were registered with children’s centres across the county as of February 2010, the majority in thenorthern districts of Ashfield (3,331), Mansfield (3,000), Bassetlaw (2,392) and Newark & Sherwood (2,253). 1,878 ofthe households registered were single parents (13%), 577 were teenage parents (4%) and 100 had English as anadditional language (0.7%) – more than half of whom were registered in Ashfield.During 20010/11, community play schemes have been set up in areas of high social need. This has lead to localparents taking up opportunities for training with a further possibility of gaining play work qualifications. Four PositivePlay projects have supported 2,036 children in areas of high need with particular reference to Hawtonville, Eastwoodand Ashfield. Of the nine play days which have been organised, Sconce Hills, Newark, Kirkby‐in‐Ashfield, Mansfield,Eastwood have been targeted and very positive responses achieved (parents and children). Parents were alsoprovided with a ‘How to Survive the School Holidays’ pack, so they could carry on the play activities at home.The Manton Neighbourhood Family Worker (NFW) is based in Manton, a neighbourhood within Worksop SouthEast Ward in Bassetlaw. 38.8% of all children living in the ward are living in poverty. The neighbourhood workerengages parents as well as young people and works to:• Give parents and children a better understanding of each other so that communication is improved and volatilesituations are avoided.• Support parents with issues in relation to self‐esteem and confidence in their parenting.• Undertake individual work with children and young people in relation to family issues, including depression, lossand change.• Give to young people some ownership in exploring the development of a ‘Listening Space’ type of group, orother activity, which could give them opportunity to be able to discuss issues of importance to them and developactivities leading to an increase in confidence and self‐esteem, as well as helping them to develop a sense ofresponsibility in their community.• Encourage young people to participate in their local community and improve the lives of other young peopleliving in Manton.• To encourage young people to develop responsibility, consider the needs of self and others and to work withtrusted adults and services to promote and maintain meaningful services within their community that areappropriate and beneficial.The following case study provides information on some of the work carried out by the worker:AW was referred to NFW services by school having very complex needs. His behaviour was unmanageable at schooland at home. He had been removed from school on a number of occasions. The family were undergoingconsiderable stress and financial problems. AW’s mother (PW) was blaming herself for some of the problems, aswere other relatives.Intervention: NFW support has been in place over a long period, with decreasing intervention as PW engaged withthe services that are now in place. Work has included supporting her in engaging with paediatric services, the use ofmedication, and involvement with other agencies including Parent Partnership, Friends Together, the Family Fund,and Framework Tenancy Support, as well as the Behaviour Support services in school. Work has also beenundertaken with behaviour management using 1‐2‐3 Magic and the Solution Focussed Approach. PW and herpartner have needed a lot of support during this process in relation to the seriousness of AW’s health needs andissues around the Statement of Special Education Needs, which is now in place. PW has four older sons and AW’sbehaviour has impacted on the whole family. At one point PW’s partner left the family home.165

Here and Now: AW’s behaviour in school has improved a great deal due to strategies now in place and 1:1 support.His behaviour at home is much more manageable with the caring and consistent approach by PW, her partner andthe sibling using strategies developed over the involvement. PW is very confident in engaging with the services nowinvolved and works well with them. She relates very well to the school and teachers involved. Her family and otherfriends are supporting her. Family Fund have provided finance so that the family now have more space in the houseand AW has space where he can go and be quiet if he needs to, as well as a large trampoline for exercising which thewhole family enjoys.“I didn’t know what they (NFW) did till they started coming to see me….I found it very useful …. NeighbourhoodFamily Workers are brilliant at their job and there should be more of them.” Evaluation comment from PW.3.17 Is everyone working with families signposting them to relevant services such as housing?The Nottinghamshire child poverty service mapping exercise asked participants to identify what interventions theyundertook to reduce the effects of poverty on families. The majority of services stated that they offered informationand signposting for parents and carers to other services (71.9%), and signposting for children and young people(58.6%) above all other interventions. When asked how they helped to lift families out of poverty many respondentsstated they signpost to services such as welfare rights, citizens advice bureaux (CAB), housing etc.There are a number of websites in Nottinghamshire to help signpost parents, children and young people to services.These include:• Families Information Service www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/fis• Pathway to Provision http://nottinghamshire.familyservicedirectory.org.uk/pathwaytoprovision.htm• Parent Zone www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/parentzone• Notts Zone www.nottszone.org.ukNew Pathway to Provision guidance has been developed for Nottinghamshire and was published in October 2010.This guidance will be enforced across all organisations working with children to enable organisations to makeappropriate referrals and intervene earlier before problems may arise. The Pathway to Provision includes guidanceon which services are available locally and a service directly is available online to support practitioners. Although thepathway focuses on children and young people, family support services are also listed. The weblink is includedabove.It is not surprising that local practitioners feel equipped in signposting and referring families and children to services,though it is not clear locally whether they take up this information and engage with the appropriate services thatcould offer them support.Organisations do not routinely collect monitoring data on the referrals made to other services. A children’s centrepilot in Bassetlaw tracked all referrals made by the local children’s centres from 1 st August 2010 to 31 st October2010. The majority of referrals were made to other children’s centre services (175), with additional referrals to‘Other’ (38), Social Care (33), Housing Support (25), Counselling (20), Adult Education and Training (8). There was,however, only one referral to Jobcentre Plus during this time, and no referrals to the Welfare Rights Service. Thispilot includes data only for one district and it would be useful to identify referral information for all children’scentres over a longer period of time, to identify if referrals are being made that will help families to get out ofpoverty. It would also be beneficial to be able to track if, once a referral is made, whether service users engage withthat service.Anecdotal evidence from the CAB has identified that their experience of setting up new services in partnership withGP surgeries and children's centres is the recipe for success in engaging residents who need support. The CAB hasfound that involving the host staff e.g. nursery workers, receptionists, health visitors etc., developing theirunderstanding about what the advice service offers and encouraging service users to use the services, increases thenumber of effective contacts. Simply giving leaflets, having posters on the wall and publicity does not work inisolation. As CAB services have become established, word of mouth is the best chance of increasing take up, forexample where one parent has benefitted from advice and tells others ‐ the key ingredient clearly being trust.166

3.18 What are we doing locally to improve outcomes for children and young people who grow up in poverty?What is the impact of what we are doing locally?The Nottinghamshire child poverty service mapping exercise 275 aimed to identify local interventions in place to tacklechild poverty. This exercise provided a snapshot of current provision, although it did highlight concerns aboutbudget cuts and future service planning. 68% of respondents highlighted that funding for their service was not yetsecured for 2011/12 and beyond, 11% stated that their service would reduce and 5% stated that their service wouldcease.Participants were asked to highlight which groups they worked with and the majority offered services forparents/carers and families, as can be seen in figure 3.18a.Figure 3.18a ‐ A breakdown of responses by target group 276140120100806040200Childrenunder 5yearsChildrenaged 5‐11YoungPeopleaged 11‐19FamiliesParentsand CarersAdultsOlderPeopleOtherDo you work with particular target groups within this catergory?Respondents were asked to identify which localities they worked in. Figure 3.18b highlights that the majority ofrespondents worked across Nottinghamshire. A number of respondents highlighted that they worked in targetedlocalities which included:• Target wards including Chilwell, Beeston West, Manton, Hawtonville, Newstead, Flintham, Syerston• Rural areas in North Nottinghamshire• Family of school areas• School catchment areas• Children’s centre catchment areas• Rural villages e.g. surrounding Retford275 Nottinghamshire Child Poverty Service Mapping Report January 2010. www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpoverty276 Nottinghamshire Child Poverty Service Mapping Report January 2010. www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpoverty167

Figure 3.18b ‐ A breakdown of responses by target locality 2779080706050403020100Nottinghamshire1372Ashfield11541 44BassetlawBroxtowe7633 28Gedling5 5MansfieldNewark and Sherwood36 37 41 40Rushcliffe5OtherDo you work withparticular localitieswithin this area?Respondents worked for a range of organisations, including the voluntary and community sector, district and parishcouncils, Nottinghamshire County Council and schools. The exercise is not a comprehensive picture of what ishappening across Nottinghamshire, but it does provide a flavour of what is happening locally. There were noresponses from the private sector and further needs assessment work should take place on a smaller scale focusingon wards with the highest levels of child poverty, to enable commissioners and planners to take an active approachin addressing gaps and ensuring interventions are able to tackle child poverty.Respondents were asked to identify how they worked to reduce the effects of poverty on children and families. Themajority of services stated that they offered information and signposting for parents and carers to other services(71.9%), signposting for children and young people (58.6%), parenting support/skills (53.1%), improving healthoutcomes for target groups (50%), and positive activities for children and young people (49.2%). Results areevidenced below.The service mapping exercise did highlight a number of gaps in service provision and these are included in the fullreport 278 . Not surprisingly, respondents highlighted funding issues as creating a number of gaps in service provision,notably provision for welfare rights and CAB, as well as dedicated posts and services for target groups, such askinship carers and gypsy & traveller services. However, other gaps were identified, including the need for moreintegrated working, including offering holistic services, data sharing and improved communication.277 Nottinghamshire Child Poverty Service Mapping Report January 2010. www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpoverty278 www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpoverty168

Figure 3.18c 279What does your service do to help reduce the effects of poverty on children andfamilies?80.0%70.0%60.0%50.0%40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0%0.0%Access to training and employment for 16‐19 year oldsAdult education/Family learningAffordable Warmth schemesBudgeting skillsCommunity development/regenerationCommunity safetyDrug/alcohol services for children and young peopleHousing/supported accommodation/floating supportImprove educational attainment for school agedImproving health outcomes for target groupsIndependent living skillsInformation and signposting for children and youngInformation and signposting for parents/carersIntegrated or targeted youth supportNeighbourhood managementParents support/parenting skillsPositive activities for children and young peopleSupport for children excluded from schoolSupport for Children in Care/Care LeaversSupport for foster carersSupport for homeless families/young peopleSupport for teenage parentsSupport to find ChildcareTransport planningWorkforce developmentNone of the aboveOther (please specify)The Nottinghamshire Child Poverty Service Mapping exercise asked what the impact of local interventions was.Respondents were asked to highlight key successes and were invited to send in annual reports and otherperformance reports, which were used in this needs assessment. 100 respondents completed this question.It was interesting to note that not all respondents were able to provide concrete evidence of how their work hadimproved outcomes for children and families. This may be because the questionnaire limited the word count in theresponse to 150 words, or further support and training may be required to build the skills of organisations tomeasure the impact of their interventions. A number of respondents stated that the impact of their activities washard to measure “I don't know how we would measure the impact”; this would indicate that commissioners andstrategic leads should focus on ensuring performance management is prioritised and support offered to agree theoptimum level of information is collected and analysed.279 Nottinghamshire Child Poverty Service Mapping Report January 2010. www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpoverty169

Appendix Four: Financial SupportThis next building block explores the potential for benefits to have a positive impact on child poverty, by increasingtake up by vulnerable groups and improving work incentives for workless households. The building block alsoexplores financial inclusion, debt and capability to help some of the most vulnerable engage with the benefit systemand other forms of support, in conjunction with voluntary and community sector organisations.It is important to note that by ensuring children and families receive financial support early, we can reduce problemslater on. For example, parents offered help to access appropriate debt support can reduce anxiety, enable familiesto have the resources they need and help to improve outcomes. Nottinghamshire is adopting an early interventionapproach to supporting children and families, as this will help to improve outcomes overall and eventually preventthe need for crisis intervention, which will also save resources. An early intervention strategy is being developed andthe Child Poverty Strategy will be written with this in mind.4.1 What level of financial resources do poor families have? How is it used? Where does it come from?Given the occupation profile in some parts of the county, it is unsurprising that workers in some areas earn, onaverage, less than the UK median 280 .The median gross weekly pay of full‐time workers resident in Nottinghamshire is £460.70. This is below the EastMidlands figure of £478.60, but above the UK figure of £449.60. At a more local level, residents of Ashfield earn£390.70 per week, whilst residents of Rushcliffe earn £584.10. Some districts show a marked difference between theearnings of people who live there compared with those who work there. Rushcliffe, for example, has a workplacefigure of £446.90, compared with a resident’s figure of £584.10 281 .Figure 4.1a Median gross weekly pay for full time workers by locality 2009Source: Annual Survey of hours and earnings via NOMISWomen continue to earn less than men with median full‐time weekly earnings of £399.30 and £525.30 respectively.Figure 4.1b shows the change in median gross weekly earnings in Nottinghamshire between 2002 and 2009. Duringthis period, male earnings rose from £419.50 to £525.30, an increase of £105.80, which represents a rate of changeof 25.2%. Female earnings went up from £286.80 to £399.30, an increase of £112.50 and a rate of change of 39.2%.All persons earnings increased from £375.00 to £476.00, a rate of change of 26.7%. By comparison, over the sameperiod, all persons earnings in the East Midlands have increased by £90.90 (24.6%) and in England by £98.80 (24.9%).280 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2009281 Headline Economic Assessment 2009 Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council170

Figure 4.1b Change in full time median gross weekly earnings in Nottinghamshire (2002‐2009)550.00500.00Change in Full-Time median gross weekly earnings,NottinghamshireMale FT Workers Female FT Workers FT Workers450.00400.00£350.00300.00250.00200.002002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Source: Office for National Statistics (2010)Table 4.1c shows by local authority district the median earnings by residence. The ‘10% decile’ gives the earningsfigure below which the 10% of lowest earners fall. This data set provides information about earnings of employeeswho are living in an area, who are on adult rates, and whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected byabsence. The discrepancies in earnings are shown in Table 4.1d, which shows that Rushcliffe has the largestdiscrepancy between the median weekly earnings and the lowest decile (£314.30), closely followed by Broxtowe(£309.90).Table 4.1c Median earnings by residence (2009)Total Male FemaleMedian 10% decile Median 10% decile Median 10% decileAshfield £358.30 £129.70 £429.50 £230.80 £282.00 £92.60Bassetlaw £383.40 £121.70 £486.30 £253.70 £273.50 #Broxtowe £447.90 £138.00 £526.10 £221.90 £324.90 #Gedling £399.50 £123.50 £478.40 £221.60 £297.30 #Mansfield £354.60 £101.20 £429.30 £230.20 £268.70 £82.10Newark & Sherwood £360.50 £106.20 £451.30 # £317.20 £96.50Nottingham £340.00 £113.50 £395.30 £167.00 £287.10 £98.40Rushcliffe £460.00 £145.70 £619.50 £237.10 £322.20 £102.20Source: Office for National Statistics, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2009# These figures are suppressed as statistically unreliableTable 4.1d Discrepancy between median earnings and lowest decile by residence (2009)DiscrepancyAshfield £228.60Bassetlaw £261.70Broxtowe £309.90Gedling £276.00Mansfield £253.40Newark & Sherwood £254.30Nottingham £226.50Rushcliffe £314.30Source: Office for National Statistics, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2009171

4.2 What do financial support activities look like locally?The following financial services are available in Nottinghamshire:• Citizens Advice Bureaux• Credit Unions• Local district campaigns and projectsCitizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) work with residents to offer support regarding debt problems and help to claimbenefit entitlements. They also advise on housing and employment problems, deal with queries about consumer ortax issues, give advice on legal matters, and answer basic questions about immigration, as well as family andpersonal matters.CAB offer generalist advice across all areas, including debt, which means that they are able to look at problemsholistically and help clients not only to manage their debts but also to deal with the problems associated with thecause of debt. These sessions are open to the general public and accessed via drop‐in; a limited number ofappointments are allocated at the beginning of each session on a first come first seen basis. Any complex debt casesseen in outreach settings can be referred on to specialists at the main office in Nottingham.CAB offers the following services to residents of Nottinghamshire:• A morning or afternoon advice surgery in Nottingham City Centre, Mondays to Fridays.• Debt clinic each Saturday morning in Nottingham City Centre• District offices in Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Broxtowe, and Mansfield• Outreach services in health centres, community centres and churches across Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Broxtowe,Gedling and Mansfield.When asking district councils what financial support activities look like in their area, most talk about the role of theCAB, which provide weekly advice sessions in a number of local locations. It seems the district councils and districtlocal strategic partnerships rely on the CAB for this support, and in many cases they have received funding fromdistrict councils, as well as Nottinghamshire County Council. However, it is important to note that future funding forCAB provision after April 2011 is not yet secure. A map of the current provision is included in Figure 4.2a.In Ashfield, CAB operates daily in their office base and offer outreach services in Kirkby Summit Centre, SelstonParish Hall, Hucknall ‘Under one Roof’, Sutton Nursery Centre in Carsic, Eastside Community Centre in Newcross andSummer House in Leamington.In Bassetlaw, CAB operates daily in their office base and they offer outreach services in Retford twice a week. Thecurrent caseload at Bassetlaw District Council (BDC) is 10,660 households claiming benefit. This has risen from 9,500before the downturn and the increase is more than average. The service is managing the caseload. The combinedamount of Housing and Council Tax benefits handled by BDC is £30 million per annum.In Broxtowe, CAB operates daily in their main Broxtowe offices in Beeston and Stapleford, as well as outreachservices in Stapleford Care Centre by appointment. Specialist services run from Stapleford include money advice, apension service and a meditation service. CAB also offers a solicitor for clients on a fortnightly basis.In Gedling, CAB operates in Arnold, Calverton, Bestwood Village, Newstead Village, Carlton, and Netherfield. Theyoffer weekly advice sessions at Daybrook Health Centre and Netherfield Medical Practice for patients of thosepractices.In Mansfield, CAB operates daily from their office in Mansfield with additional outreach sessions in Worsop TownHall, Bellamy Estate Children’s Centre, Newgate Lane Nursery, and Barrowhill Community Centre on the Oak TreeEstate.In Newark and Sherwood, CAB operates daily in their office on Castlegate, as well as a daily service in New Ollerton.They also offer additional outreach sessions in Bilsthorpe Club Resource Centre, Clipstone Health Centre, BlidworthLibrary, Rainworth Church and Tuxford Mine of Information.172

There are no specific CAB services in Rushcliffe and residents are encouraged to access the CAB office in NottinghamCity Centre. There are however CAB outreach services working with target groups in Cotgrave and the Friary DropIn.Figure 4.2a Location of Citizens Advice Bureau services across Nottinghamshire’s child poverty hot spot wards(December 2010)173

It is important to note that this map will need to be updated following cuts to the CAB budget acrossNottinghamshire. The CAB is still awaiting decisions on some funding streams, so it is not possible to be preciseabout what will change. However, as an example, all seven of Ashfield CAB's outreach services will close at the endof March 2011 and opening hours at the town centre office will reduce.Bassetlaw District Council and Citizens Advice BureauThe current caseload (November 2011) at Bassetlaw District Council (BDC) is 10,660 households claiming benefit.This has risen from 9,500 before the downturn and the increase is more than average. The service is managing thecaseload. The combined amount of Housing and Council Tax benefits handled by BDC is £30 million per annum.Debt recovery is carried out fairly and reasonably and has an important role in managing poverty. The Council has togo to court to obtain liability orders, uses attachment to earnings and bailiffs, and has had an Enforcement Policysince 2006. BDC has over £2 million in liability orders.• BDC gives CAB a grant of £73,000 a year, which is paid quarterly• £5,000 is paid quarterly for housing aid• Strategic Housing funds a court desk at the local courts to assist people with housing repossession problems. In2010/11, the funding totalled £10,000 housing grant and £10,000 open door• CAB received additional funding in recent years to improve governance and there was a Service Level Agreementfor £20,000 to provide specialist services. This raised the grant by BDC to £100,000 in 2009/10 but the basegrant is now £78,000.Bassetlaw CAB’s annual report 282 for 2009/10 indicates that it had 5,761 client visits in the year. When broken downby ward, it is clear that there is a direct correlation with areas of greatest level of child poverty.Figure 4.2bThe most enquiries made to the CAB focused on debt advice (5,001), followed by welfare benefits (3,783),employment (771), and housing (581).282 Bassetlaw CAB Annual Report 2009/2010174

The report identified that there was an increase in the number of debt related enquiries by 200 additional debtclients since 2008/09. A full caseload service was put in place to meet demand and the complexities. The debt casesincluded in the main: credit, store and charge cards (729), unsecured personal loans debt (610), council tax andcommunity charge arrears (370), bank and building society overdrafts (314), rent arrears (287). The amount ofpersonal debt handled by the CAB’s specialist debt casework team during the year was £16.4 million. Furthermore,the effects of the recession saw a major increase in enquiries concerning Job Seekers Allowance, Council Tax and TaxCredits.The following Credit Unions are available for residents of Nottinghamshire:• Maun Valley Credit Union covers Mansfield, Mansfield Woodhouse, Forest Town, Pleasley, Clipstone, NewHoughton, Stoney Houghton, Rainworth and Blidworth• Cash£ields Credit Union Ltd covers Ashfield District, Linby, Papplewick and Newstead• Meden Money Tree Credit Union serves Warsop, Shirebrook and surrounding areas• Nottingham Credit Union covers not only the City of Nottingham, but also the boroughs of Broxtowe, Gedlingand Rushcliffe• Worksop and District Credit Union serves Creswell, Whitwell, Worksop and surrounding districts.• Oakleaf – for Nottinghamshire County Council employees and councillors• Acorn is a new group working to set up a credit union in the rural district around Ollerton.NB: The County Council has contributed funding in 2010‐11 to facilitate a merger of the Nottingham Credit Unionwith Maun Valley, Cash£ields and Oakleaf Credit Unions. This will strengthen the Credit Union base in the county andalso enable the new merged Union to offer more flexible and immediate financial support to those in need. Themerger is expected to conclude in the early part of 2011‐12.Broxtowe Borough Council (BBC) has developed a unique working relationship with the Nottingham Credit Union(NCU). They provide venues at all their main offices for NCU money advice surgeries and their cash offices act as fulltime collection facilities for NCU. BBC is looking to further strengthen links by referring tenants and benefitclaimants to NCU. They are also looking to broadcast the relationship and the NCU services in the hope thatincreasing public awareness will divert people from loan sharks and door step lenders. The Credit Union’s provisionof low cost loans and accessible savings products is seen as a key strand of improving financial inclusion andpromoting self reliance.Are there activities in your area that help people manage their money e.g. budgeting skills? What do they offerand to whom? How are they used?Nottinghamshire County Council funds an intensive debt advice service through the Nottinghamshire UnemployedWorkers Centre (NUWC). NUWC offers general debt advice to communities across the north of the county and theCounty Council funding allows them to deliver more intensive one‐to‐one support to those individuals and familieswho have more severe debt problems.Rushcliffe Community Partnership has entered into a partnership with the CAB to provide more generalist and debtadvice surgeries. They have introduced advice surgeries in Cotgrave and at the Friary Drop‐in.In Rushcliffe, the Friary Drop‐in for homeless people offers specialist one to one advice sessions on the following:• Housing and social benefit need to individuals in crisis situations• Initial assessments of immediate need• Appropriate referrals or signposting to other specialist services that may operate within the Friary, such as GPclinics or drug/alcohol provision• Additional support to clients such as help with benefit form filling or providing use of a telephone.4.3 Who is receiving benefits and of what kinds?Table 4.3a shows the numbers and percentages of the working age client group (16‐64) in receipt of benefits.Outside the City of Nottingham, Mansfield and Ashfield have the largest proportion of job seekers (4.4%), andRushcliffe has the lowest (2.0%). Mansfield also has the largest proportion of Employment & Support Allowance175

(ESA)/Incapacity Benefit 283 client group (10.8%), carers (1.7%) and disabled people (1.5%). The largest proportion oflone parents outside Nottingham City is in Ashfield (2.1%).Table 4.3a Working age client group receiving benefits (February 2010)Jobseeker ESA/Incapacity Lone Parent CarerOthers onincomerelatedDisabled BereavedbenefitAshfield 4.4% 8.7% 2.1% 1.5% 0.5% 1.2% 0.2%Bassetlaw 3.4% 8.4% 1.5% 1.3% 0.4% 1.2% 0.2%Broxtowe 3.1% 5.4% 1.1% 0.9% 0.4% 0.9% 0.2%Gedling 3.3% 5.8% 1.4% 1.0% 0.3% 1.1% 0.2%Mansfield 4.4% 10.8% 2.0% 1.7% 0.4% 1.5% 0.2%Newark &Sherwood2.8% 7.0% 1.4% 1.3% 0.4% 1.1% 0.2%Nottingham 5.7% 8.0% 2.8% 1.2% 0.5% 1.0% 0.1%Rushcliffe 2.0% 3.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.8% 0.2%Source: Office for National Statistics, 20104.4 Are all families not in work claiming their entitlements? Are all working families claiming welfare benefitsthat they are entitled to? What interventions are in place to increase benefit uptake?The estimated take up of income related benefits is not available at a local level, but national data is presented herefor information. Data shows that eligible couples with children have a lower take‐up of Income Support and ESAthan lone parents. Take‐up among eligible couples with children decreased between 2007/08 and 2008/09 (Table4.4a).Couples with children have the highest take‐up rate for Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA) among the three family types(Table 4.4b). However, there is still a significant percentage (approximately 13%) of eligible couples with childrenwho are not taking up their entitlement to JSA. Using the data in Table 4.4b, this equates to nearly 9,000 coupleswith children nationally.Table 4.4c shows that couples with children have the lowest take‐up of Housing Benefit among the five family types,and lone parents have the highest take‐up. This could be because a larger proportion of lone parents than coupleswith children claim income‐related benefits, which give automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit. Working coupleswith children may not be aware of their potential entitlement to Housing Benefit on the grounds of low income.Using this data, it can be calculated that nationally a further 133,000 couples with children have potentialentitlement to Housing Benefit which is not being claimed.Couples with children have the lowest take‐up of Council Tax Benefit among the five family types (Table 4.4d) andlone parents have the highest take‐up, probably for the same reason as the non‐take‐up of Housing Benefit. Thedata suggests that a further 256,000 couples with children have potential entitlement to Council Tax Benefit which isnot being claimed.283 Data on the reasons for ESA or Incapacity benefit is not available.176

Table 4.4a Caseload take‐up of Income Support & Income‐Related Employment and SupportAllowance by families with children ‐ EnglandYearCouples WithChildrenSingleMalesSingleFemalesAll(Thousands)Number of 2007‐08 60 340 130 530Recipients 2008‐09 60 560 200 820Range ofEntitled 2007‐08 10 : 20 190 : 270 150 : 220 360 : 490Non‐Recipients 2008‐09 10 : 30 390 : 680 150 : 260 570 : 940(Percentages)Take‐Up 2007‐08 71 : 87 56 : 65 38 : 47 52 : 60Ranges 2008‐09 69 : 87 45 : 59 44 : 58 47 : 59Source: Department for Work & Pensions, 2010Table 4.4c Caseload take‐up of Housing Benefit by family type ‐ EnglandYearPensionersYearAll Non‐PensionersCoupleswithChildrenCoupleswithChildrenNon‐Pensioner groupsSinglewithChildrenSingles withChildren(Thousands)Number of 2007‐08 150 870Recipients 2008‐09 160 860Range ofEntitled 2007‐08 10 : 50 50 : 110Non‐Recipients 2008‐09 20 : 60 50 : 120(Percentages)Take‐Up 2007‐08 77 : 93 89 : 94Ranges 2008‐09 73 : 87 88 : 94Source: Department for Work & Pensions, 2010Table 4.4b Caseload take‐up of Jobseeker’s Allowance (Income‐Based) by family type ‐EnglandNonPensionerswithoutChildren(Thousands)Number of 2007‐08 1,560 2,380 230 950 1,190 3,940Recipients 2008‐09 1,510 2,530 310 910 1,310 4,030Range ofEntitled 2007‐08 210 : 380 370 : 630 80 : 150 80 : 180 180 : 340 600 : 990Non‐Recipients 2008‐09 220 : 380 440 : 820 130 : 220 70 : 210 220 : 430 680 : 1,180(Percentages)Take‐Up 2007‐08 81 : 88 79 : 87 61 : 73 84 : 92 78 : 87 80 : 87Ranges 2008‐09 80 : 87 75 : 85 58 : 70 81 : 93 75 : 85 77 : 86Source: Department for Work & Pensions, 2010All177

Table 4.4d Caseload take‐up of Council Tax Benefit by family type ‐ EnglandYearPensionersSource: Department for Work & Pensions, 2010Broxtowe Borough Council Benefits CampaignBroxtowe Borough Council is responsible for administering Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, and ensuringthat everyone who is entitled to claim does make a claim is a primary function. The benefit service has been workingthrough a take‐up strategy that has involved a number of actions. These include targeting cases for personal visitsbased on mapping benefit data to Experian data. The council also expanded the number of staff using the FirstContact service for over 60’s. They now offer a more responsive service to people who make incomplete claims.This and other work to improve take up and effective service delivery will continue. Table 4.4e shows the increase intake‐up of Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit following their campaign.Table 4.4e Broxtowe Borough Council’s Caseload Statistics showing the progress of the Benefit Take‐up Campaign2008‐09 alongside comparatorsCaseload Statistics Nov‐08 Dec‐09 Increase % IncreaseCouncil Tax BenefitNottinghamshire 59050 65130 6080 10.3%Broxtowe 7460 8430 970 13.0%Warwickshire 35800 39840 4040 11.3%North Warks 4600 5130 530 11.5%Housing BenefitAll Non‐PensionersNottinghamshire 41400 45920 4520 10.9%Broxtowe 4860 5550 690 14.2%Warwickshire 26030 29690 3660 14.1%North Warks 3000 3400 400 13.3%Source: Broxtowe Borough Council, 2010CoupleswithChildrenNon‐Pensioner groupsSinglewithChildrenNonPensionerswithoutChildrenAll(Thousands)Number of 2007‐08 2,610 2,340 250 930 1,170 4,950Recipients 2008‐09 2,520 2,490 340 860 1,290 5,010Range ofEntitled 2007‐08 1,780 : 2,310 460 : 790 130 : 190 60 : 180 250 : 450 2,330 : 3,060Non‐Recipients 2008‐09 1,430 : 1,970 590 : 990 250 : 370 100 : 220 190 : 430 2,130 : 2,930(Percentages)Take‐Up 2007‐08 53 : 60 75 : 84 57 : 66 84 : 94 72 : 82 62 : 68Ranges 2008‐09 56 : 64 72 : 81 48 : 57 80 : 90 75 : 87 63 : 70178

Bassetlaw District Council (BDC) promotes a quick turn around of Council Tax Rebate and Housing Benefit. TheBenefits Service has new IT systems in place and can process claims in 48 hours. The 48 hour Personal ClaimGuarantee applies if the claim is made with a benefits processor in a One Stop Shop at Retford or Worksop, or as aresult of a home visit. The guarantee gives people confidence in benefit claiming. It is resource intensive, but thecustomer satisfaction responses are good. The benefits processors receive training on detailed benefit issues, as it isa complex issue.BDC has also produced a Council Tax Benefit Checker to help people work out whether they are eligible for benefits.Using publicity to raise awareness of benefits helps people have confidence to claim.Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP)The impact of the downturn is that BDC’s caseload has increased and more and more customers are facing hardship.They are now being advised to claim the discretionary housing payment. However, BDC is being careful awardingthis money.These housing payments are a limited pot from the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) and in 2010/11 had anallocation of £7,500 to an upper threshold of £18,600 to help temporary hardship. The rent allowance is capped onthe accommodation that the people need and not necessarily what they are currently living in. If someone is goingto be evicted, the payment can be used while they negotiate with the mortgage company or landlord to move intoalternative accommodation. To date, BDC has spent more than half already. The fund is managed by HousingBenefits and anything over £7,500 is funded by BDC. Additional funding has been requested and BDC has allocatedmore of its own money to DHP from efficiency savings in the service.Nottinghamshire Welfare Rights Service (NWRS) works to ensure that the people of Nottinghamshire maximise theirlegal entitlements to welfare benefits. This is provided through:• Casework services for people in receipt of a personal budget, entering residential/nursing care or receivingadult social care services.• Specialist advice services to:o People who use mental health services and their carerso People who are HIV positive or have AIDSo People who have had a stroke and their carerso Adoptive parentso Parents and carers with a disabled childo Kinship carers (who take on the care of children when parents become unable to fulfil this role)o Carers of disabled or ill adults• Benefit telephone consultation for professionals• Second tier community advice sessions – tribunal representation and advocacy on complex cases referredby partner advice and information providers in the county (such as Citizen Advice Bureaux)• Information – specialist information on welfare benefits• Training for Adult Social Care & Health staff on the range of benefits and Tax Credits available, qualifyingcriteria and process for making claims.During 2009/10, Nottinghamshire residents were helped to access over £10m in extra pensions and benefits, 5,500individuals received detailed advice on benefit issues and there were over 2,000 consultancy enquiries from CountyCouncil staff. Extra health funding enabled specialist work with those affected by mental ill‐health and HIV/Aids ‐these projects advised 280 people on 449 benefit matters and raised nearly £100,000.Work on finance and benefit issues with disabled children’s services, adoption teams and, more recently, kinshipcarers, contributes significantly to the capacity of Children’s Services to support families, as well as providing extramoney to meet the specific needs of children with disabilities. In 2009/10, 220 families were advised on 347 issuesand generated £862,527 through benefit claims made.Alongside support to service users, advice was also offered to the wider Nottinghamshire public. 3,025 enquirieswere made to the telephone helpline callers and were advised on how to claim an extra £1.53m of benefit. 823179

people attended 252 local advice sessions and 194 tribunal cases were undertaken, with a 78% success rate on casesdecided.In light of the recent government cuts, community advice sessions are to be withdrawn and replaced with a reducedlibrary/County Contact based service. The following advice sessions have ceased following the budget reductions:District Location FrequencyAshfieldAshfield County ContactUnder‐One‐Roof Project, HucknallWeeklyFortnightlyBassetlawRetford County ContactWorksop County ContactFortnightlyFortnightlyBroxtoweKimberley Health ClinicEastwood Housing OptionsBeeston Citizens Advice BureauWeeklyWeeklyFortnightlyGedling Arnold County Contact FortnightlyMansfield Mansfield County Contact WeeklyNewark and Sherwood Newark Citizens Advice Bureau WeeklyRushcliffe West Bridgford Advice Centre WeeklyThe loss of the above advice sessions at County Contact Points and other community locations will result insignificant loss of benefit gains to a large number of residents of Nottinghamshire, particularly older physicallydisabled people and those whose first language is not English.The Welfare Rights Service supports the voluntary advice sector and County Contact Points through training,consultation and information in the form of a newsletter and leaflets, as well as referrals for complex casework andrepresentation. The loss of this support at time when demand is so high will significantly impact on their ability todeliver advice/information services in the future.CABs and other voluntary advice groups are working at full capacity in the county, frequently turning people awaydue to demand exceeding resources. Additionally, most organisations do not have the resources to take on advocacyand more complex benefit advice queries. Similarly, the Department for Work & Pensions is reducing the availabilityof face to face advice.The number of agencies undertaking tribunal representation in the county is very limited. There are no solicitorsoffering representation as this does not attract legal services funding. Very few of the voluntary advice groups in thecounty have the expertise to undertake tribunal work. CABs are staffed largely by volunteers and offer advice ona number of other areas of welfare, such as civil and consumer law. They therefore have the breadth but not thedepth of knowledge/expertise to advise on benefit advocacy and representation matters.The Welfare Rights Service takes referrals for tribunal representation from County Contacts, the CABs, voluntaryadvice services, the Pension Service and adult social care financial assessment officers.In 2008‐9 the public advice team undertook 640 revisions and represented at 240 tribunal hearings. The majority ofcases involve disability benefits, especially Disability Living Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).The abolition of Incapacity Benefit in 2008 and replacement by ESA has increased the need for appeal tribunalrepresentation ‐ a need that is likely to increase in autumn 2010, when current Incapacity Benefit claimants aremigrated to ESA.The reduced capacity in this service will leave a significant number of people with limiting health conditions noaccess to representation on benefits that are frequently incorrectly refused due to the flawed assessment processes.Without further resources for representation, it is difficult to envisage how this situation can be mitigated.Over recent years there has been a marked decline in telephone advice services for the public, both nationally andlocally, and the limited provision that remains is extremely difficult to access due to high numbers of calls. This hasresulted in the Welfare Rights Service’s own advice line becoming increasingly used by the public in the county.180

Nottinghamshire is a large, rural county where accessing face to face advice can involve significant travel. Telephoneadvice is particularly valuable in this context, especially to older, disabled housebound people, terminally ill peopleand families with young children. This need will not be met from any alternative source now the advice line has beenwithdrawn.Newark and Sherwood District Council carried out an analysis of council tax payers in 2009. Mosaic 284 analysis wasused to help identify groups within the district eligible for council tax or housing benefits. They found that ‘Group F’was a key target group amongst others and this group was characterised as living in social housing with uncertainemployment in deprived areas. They tend to be families, often single parents, with young children. They have verylow incomes, unemployment is high and they often suffer high levels of deprivation. The people within this groupare dependent on the council for housing, on public transport to get around, and on state benefits to fund even thebare essentials. As the poorest of the Mosaic groups, it is unsurprising that this group is likely to be eligible forcouncil tax or housing benefit. Interventions have been put in place to engage this group through face to face workand other marketing tools relevant to the group to encourage take up on council tax and housing benefitentitlements.Newark and Sherwood District Council also used the analysis to identify which groups were most likely to getthemselves into arrears, splitting them into high, medium or low risk. They identified that groups most likely to bein arrears were similar to the groups entitled to council tax and housing benefits ‐ there are 837 households in thiscategory. The council identified a number of steps to be taken to engage the group unable to pay, encouragingfinancial literacy, debt advice and support to open a bank account. Their strategy was designed to encourage longterm ability to pay, rather than a short term, often unsuccessful, extraction of funds.4.5 Which families are in debt?The Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) has no local data for debt. However, the following 2010 data gives anational picture 285 :• Average household debt in the UK is £8,562 (excluding mortgages). This figure increases to £17,838 if theaverage is based on the number of households who actually have some form of unsecured loan.• Average household debt in the UK is £57,737 (including mortgages).• Average owed by every UK adult is £29,891 (including mortgages). This is 127% of average earnings.• Average consumer borrowing via credit cards, motor and retail finance deals, overdrafts and unsecuredpersonal loans has risen to £4,433 per average UK adult at the end of September 2010.Although there is no available data at a county level on the actual numbers of homes repossessed or evictions made,mortgage and landlord possession claims leading to court orders give an insight into the current situation.To obtain a court order granting the entitlement to take possession of a property, a claimant – a mortgage lender ora landlord – must first make a claim, which is then issued by a county court. At the initial hearing, the court maygrant an order for possession of the property immediately. This then entitles the claimant to apply for a warrant tohave the defendant evicted by bailiffs. However, throughout this process, the claimant and defendant can stillnegotiate a compromise to prevent eviction.The data in Tables 4.5a & b shows that mortgage possession claims leading to orders made have decreased acrossthe county since mid‐2009 by an average of 28%. This equates to an average rate of 2.94 per 1000 households.Mansfield (4.3 per 1000) and Ashfield (3.7 per 1000) had the highest rates and Rushcliffe (1.33 per 1000) had thelowest. Landlord possession claims leading to orders being made show a more mixed picture, with an average 22%increase across the county, though an unexplained 163% increase in Gedling skews this average. The rate per 1000households is again highest in Mansfield (4.77), followed by Gedling (3.67). The lowest is again in Rushcliffe (1.67).284 An intelligence analysis tool developed by Experian285 http://www.creditaction.org.uk/debt‐statistics/2010/november‐2010.html181

Table 4.5a Mortgage possession claims leading to orders made (2009 Quarter 3 to 2010 Quarter 2)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2009 Q3 ‐ 2010 Q2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐% Changein totalsince 2008Q3 ‐ 2009Q2Per 1,000householdsTotalNottinghamshire 970 ‐28% 2.94Ashfield 185 ‐31% 3.70Bassetlaw 160 ‐35% 3.33Broxtowe 105 ‐24% 2.19Gedling 120 ‐37% 2.45Mansfield 185 ‐13% 4.30Newark and Sherwood 155 ‐13% 3.23Rushcliffe 60 ‐44% 1.33Source: Ministry of Justice, 2010Table 4.5b Landlord possession claims leading to orders made (2009 Quarter 3 to 2010 Quarter 2)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2009 Q3 ‐ 2010 Q2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐% Changein totalsince2008 Q3 ‐2009 Q2Per 1,000householdsTotalNottinghamshire 995 22% 3.02Ashfield 150 ‐7% 3.00Bassetlaw 145 25% 3.02Broxtowe 135 2% 2.81Gedling 180 163% 3.67Mansfield 205 10% 4.77Newark and Sherwood 110 49% 2.29Rushcliffe 75 ‐11% 1.67Source: Ministry of Justice, 2010Bassetlaw District CouncilDebt Recovery is carried out fairly and reasonably and has an important role in managing poverty. The Council hasto go to court to obtain liability orders, and uses attachment to earnings, bailiffs and also has had an EnforcementPolicy since 2006. Bassetlaw District Council has over £2 million in liability orders.Furthermore Bassetlaw District Council’s Strategic Housing funds a court desk at the local courts to assist peoplewith housing repossession problems.4.6 Are families moving off workless benefits taking up in‐work benefits? Are families moving off worklessbenefits gaining enough income to be over poverty levels?‘Off‐flows’ destination data shows where Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) customers go upon ceasing their claims. Thepercentage of off‐flows with a "not known" or "failed to sign" destination has increased since the start of the series,because the completion levels of the forms filled in by JSA leavers have decreased. Many of these unknown leaverswill have moved into employment.The data shows that a relatively small proportion of people leaving JSA claim another benefit (from 1.9% inRushcliffe to 2.9% in Ashfield). The data does not, however, show what proportion of those moving into work go onto claim in‐work benefits, such as Working Families Tax Credit. Data also does not show the percentages of peoplewho return to claim JSA and in what timescale.182

Table 4.6a Destination data for people leaving Jobseeker’s Allowance (Oct 2009‐Sept 2010)Foundwork ofGovernmentClaimedEducation or Gone Ceasedmore thansupportedother benefit16 hours atrainingtraining abroad claimingweekFailedto signAshfield 41.3% 2.9% 5.0% 0.6% 3.4% 2.6% 29.9%Bassetlaw 41.5% 2.6% 5.1% 0.7% 3.1% 2.0% 30.0%Broxtowe 46.8% 2.6% 4.3% 1.5% 5.5% 3.7% 24.7%Gedling 41.3% 2.8% 3.6% 1.3% 4.4% 2.3% 32.8%Mansfield 37.9% 2.8% 5.7% 0.9% 2.4% 1.4% 33.4%Newark & Sherwood 41.5% 2.6% 4.4% 1.1% 3.0% 3.2% 31.4%Nottingham 36.5% 3.3% 5.5% 1.3% 2.9% 1.7% 34.8%Rushcliffe 44.9% 1.9% 2.8% 1.4% 5.7% 3.1% 31.4%Source: Office for National Statistics, 20104.7 Are there seasonal patterns in family benefit claims – can parents keep jobs through school, nursery andplaygroup holidays?‘On‐flows’ data shows the number of new claims made to JSA on a monthly basis 286 . Breakdown into family types isnot available. Data for the periods October to September 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 reveal the following:2008/20092009/20101. February showed the highest number of on‐flows for each Local Authority district inNottinghamshire2. August showed the second highest number of on‐flows (in seven out of eight districts, includingNottingham City)3. October showed the lowest number of on‐flows across Nottinghamshire (not uniformly but in fiveout of eight districts, including Nottingham City)4. January showed the second lowest number of on‐flows1. August showed the highest number of on‐flows across Nottinghamshire (but not uniformly)2. November showed the second highest number of on‐flows across Nottinghamshire3. June showed the lowest number of on‐flows for each district in Nottinghamshire4. April showed the second lowest number of on‐flows in all but one districtAnalysis of the two periods shows little seasonal patterning to the number of new claims to JSA. However, Augustfeatures in the top two months for highest on‐flows in both years. Of course, this coincides with the school summerholidays but whether this is the determining factor is unknown.4.8 Who is accessing tax credits? Who is not accessing tax credits and why not? Are there particular groups atrisk?Working Tax Credit is based on the hours someone works and gets paid for, or expects to be paid for. People canclaim whether an employee or a self‐employed person. Child Tax Credit is paid to adults who are responsible for atleast one child or young person who normally lives with them. They do not have to be working to claim Child TaxCredit. Payments also depend on someone’s income, the lower the income, the more tax credits they can get 287 .The following table indicates the take‐up of Child or Working Tax Credit across Nottinghamshire. It is, however,unclear which groups do not access Tax Credits that they are entitled to, and this is an area for further developmentto secure data and promote uptake of families who do not access their entitlements.286 Data is from Office for National Statistics, Claimant Count dataset, 2010287 www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits183

Table 4.8a Recipient families receiving Child or Working Tax Credit in each local authority, April 2010With childrenOut‐of‐work With CTC more With CTC at or Childcarethan the family below the family element 2 WithoutAreaelementelementchildrenTotal families(Thousands)Families Children Families Children Families Children FamiliesNumberRange 1Ashfield 2.9 5.2 6.0 11.0 3.6 5.4 1.0 1.4 14.0 ± 0.5Bassetlaw 2.8 5.5 5.2 9.6 3.4 5.0 0.8 1.0 12.5 ± 0.5Broxtowe 1.8 3.2 3.8 6.5 3.6 5.3 0.9 1.1 10.2 ± 0.5Gedling 2.3 4.3 5.1 8.8 3.6 5.5 1.2 0.9 11.9 ± 0.5Mansfield 2.8 5.1 5.3 9.3 3.1 4.2 0.9 1.3 12.5 ± 0.5Newark andSherwood 2.3 4.4 4.7 8.3 3.3 4.8 0.9 1.0 11.2 ± 0.5Rushcliffe 1.0 2.0 3.2 5.9 3.4 5.4 0.9 0.6 8.2 ± 0.4Nottinghamshire 15.9 29.7 33.3 59.5 24.0 35.6 6.6 7.2 80.5 ± 1.3Source: HM Revenue and Customs, 2010Further research would be advisable as to who is not accessing tax credits and why. This may include particulargroups at risk of poverty.4.9 How many families are suffering financial exclusion? What types of financial exclusion?Nottinghamshire is working to improve financial inclusion for families. HM Treasury 288 defines financial inclusion asensuring that everyone has access to appropriate financial services, enabling them to:• manage their money on a day‐to‐day basis, effectively, securely and confidently• plan for the future and cope with financial pressure, by managing their finances to protect against shorttermvariations in income and expenditure, and to take advantage of longer‐term opportunities• deal effectively with financial distress, should unexpected events lead to serious financial difficulty.It is hoped that people who achieve these goals will enjoy significantly improved life outcome.The Derbyshire Financial Inclusion Partnership defines financial inclusion as follows:• Ability to make sound financial decisions• Access to services– Financial advice– Banking services– Affordable credit– Debt adviceBassetlaw’s Financial Inclusion StrategyThe Director of Bassetlaw CAB formed a multi agency forum of partners in the voluntary and public sector, includingCAB, Nottinghamshire County Council, Bassetlaw District Council (BDC), Worksop Credit Union, Welfare Rights, WellProject Retford and Sure Start.The key themes of the strategy include:• Access to mainstream financial services – the Credit Union is working with Barclays to allow people to accessbank accounts. BDC can use its benefit mailings and communications media to publicise such projects.• Financial capability to raise awareness in schools and neighbourhoods using A1 Housing and its tenants andresidents associations.288 HM Treasury (Financial inclusion: an action plan for 2008‐11)184

• Accessible debt advice – BDC can signpost people to CAB as often when they have a Council Tax debt they oftenhave more debt. BDC advisors will make an appointment with CAB if the customer wants access to experts tohelp them with debt advice.• Income maximisation – BDC assists with benefit campaigns to encourage take‐up.• Affordable credit and loans – the Worksop Credit Union based in Bridge Street has experience to help peopleaccess affordable credit and loans. The costs of office accommodation are high and the Credit Union hasapproached BDC for help in finding alternative premises. In summer 2010, the Credit Union was due to be aprovider of Savings Gateway aimed at encouraging the poorest to save but the scheme was ended in June 2010.4.10 How many families are in rent arrears, need rent deposits, bonds etc?Districts will collect variable data on households in rent arrears making it impossible to compare district level data.For example, in Ashfield there are approximately 1,500‐2,000 households who have rent arrears at any given timeduring a month. However, Ashfield Homes is unable to identify the number of these that are ‘families’, as opposedto lone occupants, without more detailed tenant profiling.However, all district councils offer a Deposit Guarantee Scheme. These schemes help people looking for privaterented accommodation but who do not have the deposit. Deposit Guarantee Schemes can offer a deposit guarantee(not cash) to a landlord up to the equivalent of one month's rent. They can cover potential losses incurred by alandlord (to the value of the bond) due to damage caused by the tenant or rent arrears accrued. The relevantHousing Team will need to inspect the property before a deposit guarantee can be offered. Gedling Borough Councilidentified 47 people who were offered support through the Deposit Guarantee Scheme since April 2007 – March2010.4.11 Are there particular groups at risk?Local data focusing on who is in debt, who faces financial exclusion, and which groups are unlikely to take up theirbenefit entitlements is not available so it is impossible to identify which groups are most at risk. For the purposes ofthe local strategy we can assume that groups most at risk of child poverty will be the same groups at risk of poorfinancial management and support.4.12 What is being done to support families with low level financial management skills? Who accesses this supportand why? Who does not access this support and why? What are the outcomes/impacts of this support?The Nottinghamshire Child Poverty service mapping exercise asked participants to identify which interventions theyoffered to help lift families out of poverty. Their responses are listed below.185

Figure 4.12a: A breakdown of interventions offered by respondents to help lift families out of poverty 289Other...The Nottinghamshire Child Poverty service mapping exercise asked participants to list what financial supportinterventions they offered. Only 31 people responded to the question. A selection of responses included:• Training sessions to assist people to make financial choices and decisions which will help to alleviate poverty.Debt advice, benefit advice and support which we would like to extend to some of the most deprived areas in thecounty where child poverty is at an extremely high level.• Debt management & counselling, court representation against eviction/repossession.• Money and debt advice through trained officers, a money advisor and an energy officer, in addition to running amulti‐agency money event with 20+ partner agencies.• As well as the payment of benefits, Broxtowe as a district administers Discretionary Housing Payments.• Disadvantage Subsidy supports children on free school meals to access activities out of school that they mightnot necessarily take up.• We have had access to hardship funds from various other charities.• Access to grants for set up costs for kinship carers.• Through the Rushcliffe Community Partnership we have provided support to the Rushcliffe Advice Networks. Wehave also supported a ‘Wheels to Work ‘bid for young people who are not in education, employment or training(NEET) through our children and young people’s theme group.• Home‐Start volunteers can help with budgeting and signposting to debt advice and other agencies. Some Home‐Start schemes offer a specialist service through the 'Maximising Income' project in partnership with ‘Turn to Us’helping families to access benefits.• Support to tenants in the take up of welfare benefits ‐ predominantly housing benefit.• Through our family support, we offer personalised advice according to the family need. This can be aroundbenefits, housing advice or debt management. We also have Jobcentre Plus based in our buildings once a week.• Access to self help online resources and printed books. Libraries host some welfare rights sessions.• We coordinate the Disadvantage Subsidy ‐ small amount of money enabling children to accessservices/activities.289 Nottinghamshire Child Poverty Service Mapping January 2011.186

• We did offer a top up for people who could not afford their contribution towards a Disabled Facilities Grant(DFG) but this is due to be stopped in the new financial year because of budget cuts. We do access financialsupport for disability equipment, where there are health needs from continuing healthcare. We have accessedcharity funds in the past where people have been assessed out of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).• Aftercare spend a lot of time working with young people in respect of claiming benefit, budgeting, debtmanagement, housing applications and accessing employment opportunities.• Some of our deprivation funding is offered to specific families to facilitate childcare in order for parents to accessemployment.• We signpost the Worksop Credit Union and CAB, whilst retaining the services of the Unemployed Workers Centrein Mansfield, via a service level agreement with Bassetlaw District Children's Centres.• We subsidise activities and support for economically disadvantaged families.• Budgeting and money management via family support; in‐work calculations via the unemployed advice workerservice; partnership work with Jobcentre Plus, signposting to Citizens Advice service.• Support with benefit applications and debt management.• Through our probation charity we contribute to alleviate crisis, urgent and financial hardship.The Housing Options Team in Rushcliffe provides outreach advice at Cotgrave Contact Centre fortnightly andoccasionally at the Friary. Services provided include advice (including general housing advice) and signposting, GPservices, washing and laundry facilities, food and floating support. Community projects, such as the allotmentproject, are also undertaken.Furthermore Rushcliffe District Council tackles youth and single homelessness in partnership with Children’s Servicesthrough promotional and advice work in schools and colleges, and through local media outlets aimed at youngpeople.Rushcliffe Community Safety Project and Cotgrave Area Based InitiativeThe hot‐spot area for Rushcliffe is Cotgrave. It consistently appears as an area of most need within the boroughacross the majority of indices of deprivation. The area suffers from the highest levels of unemployment within theborough. The 2001 Census data indicated that nearly a third of the town’s population has no formal qualifications.The area also has the lowest family income in Rushcliffe. It appears as a hot‐spot for crime and anti‐social behaviour(ASB) and, as this assessment reflects, has the highest percentage of children living in poverty in the borough.Due to the higher crime levels, the area is subject to an Area Based Initiative, which is a three year project aimed atreducing the levels of crime and ASB in the ward. This is being coordinated by the Community Safety Team at theBorough Council and involves officers from partner agencies working together to tackle the problems identified.Activities involved in the project include increased police patrols, youth activities, days of action, street surgeries,patch walks and community clean‐up campaigns. The overall aim of the project is to improve the quality of life forlocal residents and it is hoped that residents will get involved in the work being done to make it sustainable.There is also a Positive Futures Programme for the area. This is a sports‐based programme that targets 'at risk' youngpeople to divert them away from ASB and crime through sport and other positive activities. This project againinvolves a partnership between relevant agencies such as the police, town council, borough council and localschools.Cotgrave also has a Sure Start Children’s Centre. It offers various activities in the area targeted at the morevulnerable families. This includes a parents’ forum, weigh and play and a young parents’ group.187

In Gedling, although there are no projects and interventions aimed specifically at child poverty, in all of the wardswith the highest levels of child poverty, the Borough Council is directing its resources under the title of “PriorityNeighbourhoods”. These areas are fully supported by the Gedling Local Strategic Partnership. In these areas, a rangeof cross cutting and inter‐related issues are being addressed, in full partnership with the local community. Work isalso taking place in Newstead, parts of Carlton Hill and Phoenix.4.13 Is everyone who is engaged with families able to assess parents’ financial management skills?The Nottinghamshire Child Poverty service mapping exercise asked participants to identify if they were able toaccess training, support, information and signposting information across key themes of the child poverty strategy.Figure 4.13a 290The service mapping exercise identified that most services are able to access information and signposting data for allkey child poverty interventions. Training and support for practitioners, however, seems to be less available acrosskey themes, with the exception of ‘engaging children and young people’ and ‘parenting support’.Parenting support seems to be well established, having the greatest level of responses, followed by support andinformation regarding engaging children and young people. This could stem from the existence of countywidestrategic lead posts for both of these issues. There may be scope to ensure there is improved information, supportand training for practitioners and volunteers to address additional issues, such as welfare rights, moneymanagement, employment, childcare and housing. Further analysis would be required to ensure needs areidentified and addressed.It would be advisable to ensure proactive information is available through a central website or webpage wherepractitioners can download fact sheets, prompt discussion sheets for work with service users, signpostinginformation and web links, such as to Citizens Advice Bureaux.290 Nottinghamshire Child Poverty Service Mapping January 2011.188

Appendix Five: At Risk Groups – MatrixFamiliesexperiencingdomestic violenceBlack & MinorityEthnic GroupsChildren ofoffendersChildren of parentswho use alcohol orsubstancesYoung people whomisuse drugs andalcoholChildren withspecial educationalneeds anddisabilitiesParents withdisabilitiesYoung people notin education,employment ortrainingGypsy, Roma andTraveller groupsHomeless youngpeople/ familiesLarge families (3+children)Looked afterchildren and careleaversPregnantteenagers andteenage parentsPLACE &DELIVERYAppendix 1EMPLOYMENT& SKILLSAppendix 2FAMILY & LIFECHANCESAppendix 3Sections 1.7, 1.10 Section 3.11Section 1.7 Section 2.9 Sections 3.9, 3.11Section 3.9, 3.15Section 3.6, 3.9Section 1.11 Section 3.6, 3.9Section 1.8 Sections 2.6, 2.9 Sections 3.3, 3.11,3.13, 3.16FINANCIALSUPPORTAppendix 4Section 4.4Section 1.7 Sections 2.1, 2.2, Sections 3.3, 3.5, Sections 4.3, 4.4,2.43.124.12Sections 2.9, 2.11 Section 3.2, 3.6 Section 4.12Section 1.7 Section 3.3Sections 1.10, 1.11 Section 3.2, 3.9 Sections 4.2Section 1.9 Section 3.1Sections 1.11, 1.12 Section 2.9 Sections 3.6, 3.10Sections 1.7, 1.12 Section 2.9 Sections 3.2, 3.3,3.16Single parents Sections 1.6, 1.7 Section 2.4 Section 3.3, 3.14,3.16Young carers Sections 3.5, 3.12Young offenders Section 1.12 Section 2.9 Sections 3.6, 3.9Section 4.3, 4.4189

Appendix Six: Progress against Relevant National IndicatorsNI Ref Definition 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10NI 76NI 81NI 82NI 87NI 92NI 101NI 102aNI 102bNI 105NI 106NI 108aNI 108bReduction in number of schools where fewer than 55% ofpupils achieve level 4 or above with English and Maths at KS2[Better to be low score]Inequality gap in the achievement of Level 3 qualifications atage 19 [Better to be low score]Inequality gap in the achievement of a level 2 qualification bythe age of 19Secondary school persistent absence rate [Better to be lowscore]Narrowing the gap between the lowest achieving 20% in theEYFS and the rest [Better to be low score]LAC achieving 5A*‐C GCSEs or equivalent at KS4 includingEnglish and MathsAchievement gap between pupils eligible for Free SchoolMeals and their peers at KS 2 [Better to be low score]Achievement gap between pupils eligible for Free SchoolMeals and their peers at KS 4 [Better to be low score]SEN/non‐SEN gap achieving % A*‐C GCSEs including Englishand Maths [Better to be low score]Young people from low income backgrounds progressing to HE[Better to be low score]KS4 Attainment for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller of Irish Heritage[Better to be low score]KS4 Attainment for Any Other White Background [Better to below score]32 13 15 13‐ 31.5% 30.6% TBC39.0% 40.2% 45.1% TBC7.80% 6.16% 5.51% 4.2(p) 29135.7% 35.6% 34.6% 33.4%‐ 16.0% 7.9% TBC28.5% 23.8% 23.3% 27.7%31.0% 31.8% 32.7% 35.5%39.4% 42.5% 42.6% 43.7%22% 21% TBC TBC‐ 43.3% 47.7% 36%‐ ‐1.1% 5.1% 2.8%NI 108c KS4 Attainment for Black Caribbean [Better to be low score] ‐ 9.9% 7.7% 22.1%NI 108dNI 108eNI 108fKS4 Attainment for White and Black Caribbean [Better to below score]KS4 Attainment for Black African and White and Black African[Better to be low score]KS4 Attainment for Any Other Black Background [Better to below score]‐ 0.3% 3.0% 14.9%‐ ‐3.1% ‐8.5% ‐9.2%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐NI 108g KS4 Attainment for Pakistani [Better to be low score] ‐ ‐0.6% 1.3% ‐1.4%NI 108h KS4 Attainment for White British [Better to be low score] ‐ 0.4% 0.0% ‐0.1%NI 108i KS4 Attainment for Irish [Better to be low score] ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐NI 108j KS4 Attainment for White and Asian [Better to be low score] ‐ ‐ ‐20.0% ‐18%NI 108kKS4 Attainment for Any Other Mixed Background [Better to below score]‐ ‐4.4% 6.2% 0.1%NI 108l KS4 Attainment for Indian [Better to be low score] ‐ ‐22.2% ‐14.6% ‐19.6%NI108mNI 108nKS4 Attainment for Bangladeshi [Better to be low score] ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐KS4 Attainment for Any Other Asian Background [Better to below score]‐ ‐ ‐23.3% ‐4.5%NI 108o KS4 Attainment for Chinese [Better to be low score] ‐ ‐18.5% ‐19.0% TBCNI 108pNI 111KS4 Attainment for Any Other Ethnic Group [Better to be lowscore]First time entrants to the Youth Justice System aged 10 – 17[Better to be low score]‐ 5.6% TBC2,150 1,590 1240 TBC291 (p) = provisional190

NI Ref Definition 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10NI 112 Under 18 conception rate [Better to be low score] 35.3 39.9 TBC TBCNI 114NI 115NI 116NI 117Rate of permanent exclusions from school [Better to be lowscore]Substance misuse by young people [Better to be low score](Measure now obsolete)Proportion of children (0‐19) living in poverty [Better to be lowscore]% of young people (16‐18) In Education, Training orEmployment (EET) [Better to be low score]0.12% 0.15% 0.13% 0.12 (p)‐ 9.0% 10.0% 10.3%16.9% 16.8% TBC TBC‐ 4.5% 4.3% 4.7%NI 118 Take up of formal childcare amongst low income families 17.0% 18.2% 18.9% TBCNI 146 Adults with Learning Disabilities in employment ‐ 6.0% 7.2% 8.4%NI 148 Care leavers at 19 in education, employment or training ‐ 60.5% 56.1% 71.2%NI 150Adults in contact with mental health services in employment[Better to be low score]‐ ‐ 6.6% 4.8%NI 151 Overall employment rate ‐ 75.1% 74.9% 75.1%NI 152NI 153NI 156NI 158NI 161NI 162NI 163NI 166NI 171Working age people on out of work benefits [Better to be lowscore]Working age people claiming out of work benefits in the worstperforming neighbourhoods [Better to be low score]Number of households living in temporary accommodation[Better to be low score]% of non‐decent council homes [Better to be low score]Number of Level 1 qualifications in literacy achievedNumber of entry level qualifications in numeracy achievedProportion aged 19‐64 for males and 19‐59 for femalesqualified to L2 or higherMedian income of employees in the areaVAT registration rate (per 10,000 population)11.2% 10.9% 11.9% 12.9%‐ ‐ 29.5% 32.6%‐ ‐ 134 87‐ ‐ 16.93% 10.6%2585 3087 4291 TBC299 423 872 TBC68.1% 68.3% 68.8% 70.4%£402.80 £420.00 £429.90 £446.0047.8 47.2 41.7 TBCNI 172 % of small businesses in an area showing employment growth 15.0% 14.6% 14.5% TBCNI 173NI 174NI 176NI 181NI 187People falling out of work and onto Incapacity Benefit [Betterto be low score]Skills gaps in the current workforce reported by employers[Better to be low score] (Measure now obsolete)Working age people with access to employment by publictransportTime taken to process Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefitnew claims and change events [Better to be low score]% of people receiving income based benefits living in homeswith a low energy rating [Better to be low score]0.84% 0.86% TBC TBC16% ‐ 17% n/a‐ 83.0% 86.9% 80.0%‐ ‐ 10.9 13.1‐ ‐ 7.5% 7.6%191

Place and DeliveryNI 11621.616.8NI 146NI 158NI 1726.48.416.210.614.214.5EnglandNottinghamshireNI 1768280NI 187*7.60 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90*NI 187 – No data available for England scoreNational Indicator DefinitionsNI 116 – Proportion of children in poverty (Better to be high score) (%)NI 146 ‐ Adults with Learning Disabilities in employment (Better to be high score) (%)NI 158 ‐ Non‐decent council homes (Better to be low score) (%)NI 172 ‐ Small businesses in an area showing employment growth (Better to behigh score) (%)NI 176 – Working age people with access to employment by public transport (Betterto be high score) (%)NI 187 ‐ People receiving income based benefits living in homes with a lowenergy rating (Better to be low score) (%)192

Employment and SkillsNI 1181818.9NI 148*NI 15171.27375.1EnglandNottinghamshireNI 16370.970.40 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100*NI 148 – No data available for England scoreEmployment and SkillsNI 166£0.00 £100.00 £200.00 £300.00 £400.00 £500.00 £600.00EnglandNottinghamshireNational Indicator Definitions:NI 118 – Take up of formal childcare amongst low income families (better to be highscore) (%)NI 148 – Care leavers at 19 in education, employment or training (better to be highscore) (%)NI 151 ‐ Overall employment rate (better to be high score) (%) (Quarter 3 2009)NI 163 ‐ Proportion aged 19‐24 for males and 19‐59 for females qualified to Level 2or higher (better to be high score) (%)NI 166 ‐ Median income of employees in the area (better to be high score) (£)193

Family and Life ChancesNI 81NI 9224.630.632.733.4NI 1019.87.9NI 102a22.327.7NI 102bNI 10527.835.546.543.7EnglandNottinghamshireNI 1061821NI 11240.539.9NI 1176.44.70 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100National Indicator Definitions:NI 81 ‐ Inequality gap in the achievement of Level 3 qualifications at age 19(Better to be low score) (%)NI 92 ‐ Narrowing the gap between the lowest achieving 20% in the EYFS andthe rest (Better to be low score) (%)NI 101 ‐ LAC achieving 5A*‐C GCSEs or equivalent at KS4 including Englishand Maths (Better to be high score) (%)NI 102a ‐ Achievement gap between pupils eligible for Free School Meals andtheir peers at KS 2 (Better to be low score) (%)NI102b ‐ Achievement gap between pupils eligible for Free School Meals andtheir peers at KS 4 (Better to be low score) (%)NI 105 ‐ The SEN/non‐SEN gap – achieving 5 A*‐C GCSE including English and Maths(Better to be low score) (%)NI 106 ‐ Young people from low income backgrounds progressing to HE (Better tobe low score) (%)NI 111 – First time entrants to the Youth Justice System aged 10‐17 (Better tolow score) (Rate per 100,000)NI 112 ‐ Under 18 conception rate (Better to be low score) Rate per 1,000 girls)NI 117 ‐ Young people (16‐18) not in Education, Training or Employment (NEET) (Better tobe low score) (%)194

Financial SupportNI 15332.332.6NI 181*13.10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100EnglandNottinghamshire*NI 181 ‐ No data available for England scoreNational Indicator Definitions:NI 153 ‐ Working age people claiming out of work benefits in the worst performingneighbourhoods (Better to be low score) (Number of Calendar Days)NI 181 ‐ Time taken to process Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit new claims andchange events (Better to be low score) (%)195

Appendix SevenInterrelated Local StrategiesAffordable Warmth Strategy 2011 ‐ to be published April 2011Behaviour & Attendance Strategy 2010http://itsacr02a.nottscc.gov.uk/apps/ce/memman/memman.nsf/79140AE94D189976802576100031F7F9/$file/4_Behaviour%20and%20Attendance%20Strategy%20APPX.pdfChildcare Sufficiency Assessment (produced every three years – next one due end March 2011)www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/fisHomelessness strategies – written by each individual borough/district council and available on their websites. Alsoavailable is the Nottinghamshire Supporting People Young People’s Services Strategic Review (2008‐09)www.nottssupportingpeople.org.uk/documents/list/young‐people’s‐strategic‐reviewLocal Economic Assessments 2009 and 2010www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/insight/framework/local‐economic‐assessment/home.aspxLocal Enterprise Partnershipwww.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20777&p=0Nottinghamshire 14‐19 & Raising the Participation Age Plan 2010/11www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/cypplan_appendix.htmNottinghamshire Children and Young People’s Planwww.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/home/learningandwork/nottscyppartnership/cypplanhome.htmNottinghamshire Early Intervention Strategy ‐ To be published in spring 2011Nottinghamshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessmenthttp://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/home/youandyourcommunity/factsaboutnotts.htmNottinghamshire Parenting Support Strategy 2008 www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/parentzoneNottinghamshire Pathway to Provisionwww.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/home/learningandwork/childrenstrust/pathwaytoprovision.htmNottinghamshire Safeguarding Improvement Programmewww.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/home/learningandwork/childrenstrust/safeguardingimprovementprogramme.htmNottinghamshire Sustainable Community Strategy www.nottinghamshirepartnership.org.uk/index/sustainablecommunity‐strategy/Nottinghamshire Working with Fathers Strategy 2009 www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/fathersstrategy.pdfTeenage Pregnancy Strategy Action Plan 2010/11www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/home/learningandwork/childrenstrust/cypplanhome/cypplan_sectionfive/cypplan_priority10.htmThe State of Nottinghamshire 2009 www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/stateofnottinghamshire2009.pdfYoung People’s Substance Misuse Needs Assessment 2010 and Strategy 2010/11 www.safernottsdaat.nhs.ukYouth Crime Strategy 2010‐2013 www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/youthoffending.htm196

Appendix EightICM Survey Social Class DefinitionsMost market research projects classify the population into social grades, usually on the basis of the Market ResearchSociety (MRS) occupational groupings (MRS, 1991).They are defined as follows:A.B.C1.C2.D.E.Professionals such as doctors, solicitors or dentists, chartered people like architects;fully qualified people with a large degree of responsibility such as senior civil servants,senior business executives and high ranking grades within the armed forces. Retiredpeople, previously grade A, and their widows.People with very senior jobs such as university lecturers, heads of local governmentdepartments, middle management in business organisations, bank mangers, policeinspectors, and upper grades in the armed forces.All others doing non‐manual jobs, including nurses, technicians, pharmacists, salesmen,publicans, clerical workers, police sergeants and middle ranks of the armed forces.Skilled manual workers, foremen, manual workers with special qualifications such aslorry drivers, security officers and lower grades of the armed forces.Semi‐skilled and unskilled manual workers, including labourers and those servingapprenticeships. Machine minders, farm labourers, lab assistants and postmen.Those on the lowest levels of subsistence including all those dependent upon the statelong‐term. Casual workers and those without a regular income.197

Appendix NineGlossaryACLSADCAHLALMAPACAPHOASAASBASSETBBCBDCBISFBMEBNSCABCAFCAMHSCDPRCERTCRTCSACTCCVACWIDAATDCATCHDDADHDFGDHPDWPEETEHCSEMAEMDAAdult Community Learning ServiceAshfield District CouncilAshfield Homes LimitedActive Leisure ManagementAshfield Partnership Against CrimeAssociation of Public Health ObservatoriesThe governing body for swimming in EnglandAnti‐social behaviourA scoring system based on factors in the life of a young offender, used to predict thelikelihood of re‐offendingBroxtowe Borough CouncilBassetlaw District CouncilBritish Iron & Steel FederationBlack & Minority EthnicBassetlaw, Newark and SherwoodCitizens Advice BureauxCommon Assessment FrameworkChildren & Adolescent Mental Health ServiceCrime and Drugs PartnershipCarbon Emissions Reduction Target ‐ requires all domestic energy suppliers with acustomer base in excess of 50,000 customers to make savings in the amount of CO 2emitted by householders. Suppliers meet this target by promoting the uptake of lowcarbon energy solutions to household energy consumers, thereby assisting them toreduce the carbon footprint of their homesCoalfields Regeneration TrustChildcare Sufficiency Assessment ‐ a tri‐annual analysis which gives a detailed picture ofthe supply of, and demand for, childcare across the countyChild Tax Credit is paid to parents/carers if they are responsible for at least one child oryoung person who normally lives with them. Parents/carers do not have to be workingto claim Child Tax CreditContextual Value Added ‐ a statistic used to show progress children have made, whichtakes into account the circumstances of children attending the school that are beyondthe school's controlChild Well‐Being Index – based on the methodology used in the IMD, but containingvariables that are not strictly related to deprivation but rather to well‐being e.g. health,housing, environment, education etc.Nottinghamshire Drug & Alcohol Action TeamDisabled Children’s Access to ChildcareDisability Discrimination ActDepartment of HealthDisabled Facilities GrantDiscretionary Housing PaymentDepartment for Work and PensionsEducation, Employment or TrainingEnglish House Condition SurveyEducation Maintenance Allowance – financial support for 16‐18 year olds fromdisadvantaged backgrounds to enable them to access learningEast Midlands Development Agency198

ERDFESAESOLEYFSFEFEIFREEFSMGBCGCSEGISGRTGVAHEIAPTIBIDACIIMDIMRISJSAJSNALACLBWLDDLEGILLTILSOALSPMARRMAETMCAMDCMPACMRSNASNCCNEANEETNFWNINI 116NMPEuropean Regional Development FundEmployment & Support AllowanceEnglish for Speakers of Other LanguagesEarly Years Foundation StageFurther EducationFamily Employment InitiativeFuture of Rural Energy EnglandFree School MealsGedling Borough CouncilGeneral Certificate of Secondary EducationGeographic Information System ‐ a set of tools that captures, stores, analyzes, manages,and presents data that are linked to location(s). It is the merging of cartography,statistical analysis and database technologyGypsy, Roma & TravellerGross Value Added ‐ is a measure in economics of the value of goods and servicesproduced in an area, industry or sector of an economy.Higher EducationImproving Access to Psychological TherapiesIncapacity BenefitIncome Deprivation Affecting Children Index – a sub‐set of the IMD, which combinesstatistics on the numbers of children in households receiving a range of benefitsIndices of Multiple Deprivation – a methodology that identifies deprivation at a verylocal level measured across a number of key indicators, such as income, employment,health and educationInfant Mortality Rate ‐ the number of deaths of children under the age of one year, per1000 live birthsIncome SupportJob Seekers AllowanceJoint Strategic Needs AssessmentLooked After ChildrenLow Birth RateLearning Difficulties and DisabilitiesLocal Enterprise Growth InitiativeLimiting or Long Term IllnessLower Super Output Area ‐ an area with a population of about 1,500 people andapproximately 400 householdsLocal Strategic PartnershipMansfield Ashfield Regeneration RouteMulti‐Agency Employment TeamManton Community AllianceMansfield District CouncilMansfield Partnership Against CrimeMarket Research SocietyNational Apprenticeship ServiceNottinghamshire County CouncilNational Energy ActionNot in Education, Training or Employment (term used for 16‐18 year olds)Neighbourhood Family WorkerNational IndicatorMeasures the proportion of children (under 20 years) living in families in receipt of outof work (means‐tested) benefits or in receipt of tax credits where their reported incomeis less than 60% of median incomeNeighbourhood Management Pathfinder199

NOMISNSDCNUWCNWRSONSPBPCTPFIR&MRBCSDASDSASEALSENSIISNBSUDITMTTWAUNVCSWAM?WHOWNFWTCYOSOffice for National Statistics labour market statistics websiteNewark & Sherwood District CouncilNottinghamshire Unemployed Workers CentreNottinghamshire Welfare Rights ServiceOffice of National StatisticsParticipatory BudgetingPrimary Care TrustPrivate Finance InitiativeRoutine and ManualRushcliffe Borough CouncilSevere Disablement AllowanceSelf Directed Support AssessmentSocial & Emotional Aspects of LearningSpecial Educational NeedsSlope Index of Inequality – a way of measuring the relationship between a health issueand deprivationSafer Nottinghamshire BoardSudden Unexpected Death in InfancyTeenage MotherTravel to Work Area ‐ zones where the bulk of the resident population also works withinthe same areaUnited NationsVoluntary & Community Sector‘What about me?’ – Nottinghamshire DAAT’s service for young people affected bysomeone else’s drug useWorld Health OrganisationWorking Neighbourhoods FundWorking Tax Credit ‐ is based on the hours someone works and gets paid for, or expectsto be paid for. People can claim whether they are an employee or a self‐employedperson. However, unpaid work does not count for Working Tax CreditYouth Offending ServiceFor more information:email:irene.kakoullis@nottscc.gov.ukgeoff.hamilton@nottscc.gov.ukphone: 0115 9774431post:internet:Children, Families & Cultural Services, NottinghamshireCounty Council, County Hall, West Bridgford,Nottingham, NG2 7QPwww.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/childpoverty200