1. Developing A Kent Local Wellbeing Indicator Presentation to SEPHIG – 16 th June 2016 Version: 4 Last updated: 14 th June 2016 Produced by Jess Mookherjee, Public Health Consultant Rachel Kennard, Senior Intelligence Analyst Zara Cuccu, Public Health Analyst

2. Objectives To create a local wellbeing index that… 1.…provides an objective measure of wellbeing at small-area level 2.…attempts to take into account all aspects of wellbeing

3. Initial Discovery Phase Horizon scanning to identify published measures of wellbeing – WARM (Wellbeing & Resilience Measure) – OECD Regional Wellbeing Indicator – ONS Measure of National Wellbeing – WHO Review: Urban health indicators and indices Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 3 FrameworksIndicatorsIndex Construction

4. Framework Based on the WARM indicator framework – 3 domains… Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 4 Self Systems & Structures Supports Education Enabling Infrastructure Strong & Stable Families Material WellbeingLocal EconomySocial Capital Health Effective Public Services Life Satisfaction Crime & Antisocial Behaviour – 10 sub-domains…

5. Indicators World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria for indicator selection – Built on consensus – Relevant – Valid and reliable – Sensitive to differences – Clear specification – Repeatable Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 5 World Health Organisation (2014) The urban health index: a handbook for its calculation and use. http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/publicati ons/urban_health_index_toolkit/en/ http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/publicati ons/urban_health_index_toolkit/en/

6. Indicators WARM indicators the start point Supplemented with relevant indicators from other measures – OECD Regional Wellbeing Indicator – ONS Measure of National Wellbeing Updated with more recent data Refined based on expert consultation Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 6

7. Index Construction Standardisation of indicators Calculation of overall index values (domains & overall) – Geometric mean advocated by WHO replaced with arithmetic means – Weighting of indicators possible Sensitivity analysis to inform indicator selection – Indicator correlations, impact of including/excluding individual indicators Summary statistics to inspect distribution & quantify gap – Mean, median, minimum, maximum, slope of mid-section, top & bottom decile ratios. Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 7 Based on WHO approach to constructing a health index Rothenburg et al BMC Public Health (2015) Urban health indicators and indices – current status. http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1 186/s12889-015-1827-x http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1 186/s12889-015-1827-x

8. An Example – Education Sub-Domain Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 8 Education 1.Attainment – GCSEs 2.Attainment – Year R 3.Qualifications – Level 2 4.Qualifications – Level 4 5.Qualifications – None* 6.Education, skills & training IMD* REMOVED 1.Attainment – GCSEs 2.Qualifications – Level 2 3.Qualifications – Level 4 4.Education Score - CWI 5.Qualifications – None 6.Staying on in education post-16 WARM REPLACED WITH YEAR R ATTAINMENT & IMD DOMAIN * Denotes indicators where the polarity has been reversed (i.e. high values are associated with poor wellbeing)

9. An Example – Education Sub-Domain Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 9 Education 1.Attainment – GCSEs 2.Attainment – Year R 3.Qualifications – Level 2 4.Qualifications – Level 4 5.Qualifications – None* 6.Education, skills & training IMD* Correlations * Denotes indicators where the polarity has been reversed (i.e. high values are associated with poor wellbeing)

10. An Example – Education Sub-Domain Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 10 Distribution & Summary Statistics Measures of Central Tendency Mean0.56 Median0.59 Measures of Range Minimum0.11 Maximum0.93 Mean of bottom decile0.27 Mean of top decile0.80 Ratio of top:bottom decile2.90 Slope of mid-section0.001 Education

11. Proposed Indicators Self Education Material Wellbeing Health Life Satisfaction 1.Attainment – GCSEs 2.Attainment – Year R 3.Qualifications – Level 2 4.Qualifications – Level 4 5.Qualifications – None* 6.Education, skills & training IMD* * Denotes indicators where the polarity has been reversed (i.e. high values are associated with poor wellbeing) 7.Income 8.Employment rate 9.Unemployment – age 16-64* 10.Unemployment – age 50+* 11.Unemployment – age 18-24* 12.Working age benefits* 13.Income deprivation – children* 14.Income deprivation – older people* 15.In good health 16.Healthy life expectancy - at birth 17.Healthy life expectancy - at 65 years 18.Premature mortality* 19.Disability* 20.Depression (QOF)* 21.Mental health problems (QOF)* 22.Mental health contact rates* 23.Mental Illness Needs Index (MINI)* 24.Hospital admissions – alcohol* 25.Hospital admissions - self-harm* 26.Hospital admissions – falls* 27.Health IMD * 28.Low 'life satisfaction‘* 30.Low 'happy yesterday' * 31.Low 'worthwhile‘*

12. Social Capital Strong & Stable Families Supports Proposed Indicators 32.Married couples household with children 33.Households with children but no adult in employment* 34.Lone parent households with children (dependent)* 35.Lone parent households with children (any)* 36.Divorcee households* 37.Carers – 50+ hours per week* 38.Under-occupied households - single-person aged 65+* 39.One person pensioner households* 40.Social isolation propensity indicator* * Denotes indicators where the polarity has been reversed (i.e. high values are associated with poor wellbeing) Interest in charity/voluntary work 41.Environmental organisation membership 42.Sports/hobby organisation membership 43.Participation in sport 44.Voter turnout: 2015 general election 45.Transiency* Incidents of domestic violence* Referrals to Specialist Children’s Services* Referrals to Adult Social Services* Young carers* Member of voluntary service group Belong to neighbourhood Talk regularly to neighbours

13. Crime & Antisocial Behaviour Effective Public Services Local Economy Enabling Infrastructure Systems & Structures Proposed Indicators 46.Renting households* 47.Over-occupied households* 48.Travel to work - less than 10km 49.Access to services - Distance to GP* 50.Access to services – Distance to A&E* 51.Barriers to housing and services IMD * * Denotes indicators where the polarity has been reversed (i.e. high values are associated with poor wellbeing) 52.Businesses per head 53.Travel time by public transport/walking to medium-sized employment centres* 54.Satisfaction with GP 55.Satisfaction with local police 56.Library usage 57.Feel safe - walking alone at night 58.Feel safe - walking alone in the day 59.Feel safe - home alone at night 60.Crime - all recorded* 61.Crime - burglary* 62.Crime - anti-social behaviour* 63.Crime - violence & sexual offences* 64.Crime IMD*

14. The Kent Wellbeing Index Tool Promotes the positive – Being ranked 1 st = best Ward-level output Three key elements Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 14 1.Overall index score Ward - District – Kent 2.Assets and vulnerabilities: Summary Ward 3.Assets and vulnerabilities: Detailed Ward – District – Kent

15. The Kent Wellbeing Index Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 15 IMD 2015

16. Where Do You Come In? We would like your opinion and ideas for improvement – In particular, are the indicators right? Should we add anything? Should we remove anything? Developing a Local Wellbeing Index, March 2016 16