1. Communities ASD Seminar 2 nd June 2009 Sinéad Power - GUS Project Manager Scottish Government

2. Aim of the Presentation 1.To provide an overview of the Growing up in Scotland study including: - Research objectives - Research design - Content 2.Present some key findings from the GUS reports particularly the 2009 Report ‘Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context’ 3.Looking to the future – what are the options in GUS for area level analysis?

3. About GUS: Research Objectives Explore the impact of early years experiences on later life outcomes How do the experiences and outcomes of Scottish children differ? What can we do to improve things?

4. Study Design (1) –Two cohorts – initially (Sw1) Birth cohort: 5217 children aged 10 months Child cohort: 2859 children aged 34 months –National sample capable of analysis by urban/rural, deprived/non-deprived and other sub-groups of interest –Sample drawn from Child Benefit records –Face-to-face (CAPI) survey of parents annually until child reaches five (almost six) years of age then at selected stages of interest

5. Study design (2): Ages and Stages Age at interview Sweep Launch year 0-11-22-33-44-55-6 1 2005 BC1 (5217) CC (2858) 2 2006 BC1 (4512) CC (2500) 3 2007 BC1 (4191) CC (2331) 4 2008 BC1CC 5 2009 BC1 = Birth cohort 1 CC = Child cohort BC1 6 2010 BC1

6. GUS1GUS2GUS3GUS4GUS5 (2005/6)(2006/7)(2007/8)(2008/9)(2009/10) BC only Main carer Partner Child height & weight Cognitive assessments Health records Health records Health records Health records Health records Study Design (3): Sources of information

7. Study content: Core topics of the main interview Household composition and family demographics Parental health and well-being Non-resident parentsEarly experiences of pre- school Parental supportEarly experiences of primary school Parenting stylesPregnancy and birth ChildcareInvolvement of grandparents Child health and developmentMaterial deprivation Activities with othersFood and nutrition Education and employmentHousing and neighbourhood Income and benefitsSocial networks and social capital Accommodation and transportParental health and well-being

8. GUS and area level analysis SIMD and Rural/Urban - across sweeps Sweep 2 (2008) report on Growing up in Rural Scotland Sweep 3 (2009) report on Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context

9. Growing up in Rural Scotland (2008) Breastfeeding rates are higher in rural areas and mothers are less likely to smoke. Children in rural areas are more likely to have ‘child-rich’ social lives. Families with young children make less use of formal childcare in rural areas.

10. Parenting and the neighbourhood context report (2009)

11. Background context Local area and local services feature prominently in the national performance framework Creating communities that provide a supportive environment for children and families also a key aim of the Early Years Framework.

12. Aim of report Report aims to: –Explore families’ experiences of living in Scotland’s neighbourhoods –Examine parents’ views on different aspects of their local area –Identify differences in the views and experiences of parents, in particular relation to area deprivation and urban-rural classification –Consider the relationship between area characteristics and parenting behaviours

13. The data Neighbourhood data: –Satisfaction with local area –Availability, use and assessment of local services/facilities –Perceptions of safety –Perceived ‘child-friendliness’ of the local area Social network and social support data: –Visits to or visits from family members –Contact with grandparents –Attendance at/ involvement in local parent/child groups –Ease of arranging short-notice childcare –Perceptions of informal social network – closeness to, and perceived level of support from, family and friends

14. Parents perceptions of their area 81% of parents are very or fairly satisfied with the area where they live Satisfaction level varies according to area characteristics Availability and use of local facilities/ services People living in rural areas were less likely to have access to services such as childcare, health and leisure facilities than were those in urban areas Areas of higher deprivation also suffered from a lack of childcare, health and leisure facilities

15. Availability, use and deprivation (%) None in area In area but not used In area used sometimes/often LeastMostLeastMostLeastMost Parent & toddler group41652594425 Registered childminder5288166146 Playgroup102173661812 Nursery6663733121 GP8139128375 Community health services91224226866 Library101431375949 Public swimming pool/leisure centre273417165650 Playground or park4105179173 Credit Union8952103919 Advice centre66423246212

16. Parents views of services… Local health and education services were rated highest by parents, whereas facilities for children and young people were rated lowest Facilities for young children were seen as most in need of improvement – selected by one-fifth of respondents

17. Percentage rating services as good or very good, by deprivation - birth cohort

18. Percentage with low satisfaction with facilities score - birth cohort

19. Services and issues most in need of improvement in local area by area urban rural and deprivation classification Service or issue Area Urban Rural Classification (%) Area Deprivation UrbanRural Least deprived Most deprived All Access to GPs and local health services 35333 Good quality affordable housing 1415111514 Good shopping facilities nearby 89978 Access to good public transport 310624 Quality of schools 53544 Level of crime 12241910 Quality of jobs 22122 Facilities for young children 2021162420 Sense of community spirit 22312 Cleanliness of local environment 51264 Condition of public spaces 75956 Family and friends close by 33513 Facilities for older children 791058 Access to good quality affordable childcare 23312 Amount of traffic/dangerous drivers 671046

20. Social networks  Three-quarters of parents had a satisfactory friendship network and a similar proportion had a satisfactory family network.  A little over half (57%) had both satisfactory networks and only 10% in the birth cohort and 8% in the child cohort had neither.  Respondents living in areas of low deprivation were slightly more likely to have satisfactory friendship networks than were those living in areas of high deprivation (79% V 70%).

21. Child-friendliness  Most parents said their local area was moderately or very child-friendly.  Factors independently associated with lower perceived notion of area child-friendliness:  Living in an urban or deprived area  Lower levels of neighbourhood satisfaction  A negative rating of local facilities  Having fewer satisfactory social networks  Level of education

22. Variation in perceived child-friendliness by area deprivation - birth cohort

23. Are area characteristics related to parenting behaviour?

24. Relationship between area characteristics and parenting behaviours Factors associated with parenting behaviours Factors not associated with parenting behaviours Area deprivation Urban-rural classification Existence of social networks Assessment of local facilities Household income Level of education (Tenure) (Length of residence) (Mother’s age at child’s birth) Area child-friendliness Neighbourhood satisfaction

25. Future developments in GUS and the relationship to area level characteristics Re-running the neighbourhood module? Data linkage? Local Authority level analysis?

26. LA Level Analysis Not currently possible Paper on web Modelling options being considered??

27. WANT TO KNOW MORE? www.growingupinscotland.org.uk Sinead.Power@scotland.gsi.gov.uk