Birmingham Public Health Early Years Health & Wellbeing ...€¦ · Nov 2015 – March 2016 Birmingham Public Health Information & Intelligence Team Contents ... new "Health and Wellbeing

Report provided: Birmingham Public Health Information & Intelligence Team

Involved in / contributed to Consultation: Pip Mayo, Maria Kidd, Nicola Pugh

13 July 2016

Draft V1.

Birmingham Public Health

Early Years Health &

Wellbeing Services Consultation and Findings

Early Years Consultation

Nov 2015 – March 2016 Birmingham Public Health Information & Intelligence Team

Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Consultation ....................................................................................................................... 1

2 Data Sources and Scope ............................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Moo Moo Marketing .......................................................................................................... 2

3 Responses ..................................................................................................................................... 2

4 Key Findings .................................................................................................................................. 3

4.1 Our vision is to provide every child with an equal chance to have a really good start in

life. To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with this vision? ................................................. 3

4.2 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with our proposals for a ‘Universal Offer’ ..... 5

4.3 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the proposal to have ‘universal plus’

services, targeted at children who need more support? ............................................................. 6

4.4 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s proposals to have a ‘single

system’ with a lead agency? ......................................................................................................... 8

4.5 How important, or unimportant, do you think the following services are as part of the

new "Health and Wellbeing Offer" ............................................................................................... 9

4.6 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s proposal to support local

self-help services run by families for families? Respondents were asked to XXX .................... 12

4.7 To what extend do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s proposal to deliver

services in the places that children and families use most regularly? ....................................... 13

4.8 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s view to support the

following outcomes .................................................................................................................... 14

4.9 Are there any other comments you would like about this consultation. Please write

below 17

5 Demographics ............................................................................................................................. 18

5.1 Of the descriptions below which best describes you: 37 (100%) .................................... 18

5.2 11 If you are a parent of a child aged 0 – 5 years old have you used Early Years Services

18 (48.6%) ................................................................................................................................... 19

5.3 Would you describe your child as having health or development needs that would

require additional support? ........................................................................................................ 21

5.4 What is your postcode? .................................................................................................... 21

5.5 Age: Which age group applies to you? ............................................................................. 22

5.6 16 Gender: What is your sex/gender?............................................................................. 23



5.7 Disability: Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or

expected to last for 12 months or more? 36 (97.3%) ................................................................ 24

5.8 18 Ethnicity: What is your ethnic group? ........................................................................ 24

5.9 19 Sexual Orientation: What is your sexual orientation? 37 (100%) ............................. 25

5.10 20 Religion: What is your religion or belief? 37 (100%) ................................................. 25

5.11 21 Finally, we are looking for a number of people to become more actively involved in

the design of our new Early Years Health and Wellbeing Offer and take part in focus groups. If

you would be interested in this please put your details below. ................................................ 26

6 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix A: Postcodes ........................................................................................................................... 1

Our vision is to provide every child with an equal chance to have a really good start in life. To what

extent do you agree, or disagree, with this vision? ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with our proposals for a ‘Universal Offer’ Error! Bookmark

not defined.

To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the proposal to have ‘universal plus’ services,

targeted at children who need more support? ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s proposals to have a ‘single system’ with

a lead agency? .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

How important, or unimportant, do you think the following services are as part of the new "Health

and Wellbeing Offer" ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s proposal to support local self-help

services run by families for families? ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

To what extend do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s proposal to deliver services in the

places that children and families use most regularly? ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s view to support the following outcomes

Error! Bookmark not defined.

Are there any other comments you would like about this consultation. Please write below ....... Error!

Bookmark not defined.

Appendix : Consultation Report from Moo Moo Marketing .................................................................. 1

List of Figures



Figure 1: Our vision is to provide every child with an equal chance to have a really good start in life

(4.1) ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with our proposals for a “Universal Offer” .......... 6

Figure 3: To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the proposal to have "universal plus"

services, targeted at children who need more support? ........................................................................ 7

Figure 4: To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council's proposals to have a single

system with a lead agency? .................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 5: How important or unimportant, do you think the following services are as part of the new

"Health and Well-being Offer" (Parents with Children aged 4 or under) ............................................. 11

Figure 6: How important or unimportant do you think the following services are as part of the new

"Health and Well-being Offer" (EY Professionals) ................................................................................ 11

Figure 7: How important or unimportant do you think the following services are as part of the new

"Health and Well-being Offer" (All Others) .......................................................................................... 12

Figure 8: To what extent to you agree or disagree with the Council's proposal to support local self-

help services run by families for families? ............................................................................................ 13

Early Years Consultation Page 1 of 43


Early Years

Consultation and Findings

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Every parent wants the best for their children. We want to support this by providing every child

living in Birmingham with an equal chance to have a really good start in life.

Birmingham City Council feels this will be achieved if every child has a good level of development

when they start school.

Early Years Services are provided to support parents from the time a child is conceived up until the

age of 5. How well a child does in their Early Years has a huge impact on how they do in the rest of

their lives.

Birmingham’s Early Years Services provide support around 100,000 parents and 80,000 children at

any one time.

1.2 Consultation

To deliver this vision, Birmingham City Council is proposing a new integrated Health and Wellbeing

Offer for parents by changing the way we deliver the following services:

• Children’s centres;

• Health visiting and family nurse partnerships;

• Parenting support services;

• Pregnancy and breastfeeding support services

A consultation was carried out to engage the public, parents and Early Years Professional and seek

their views on the proposed model. A consultation document and questionnaire was provided, both

online through BeHeard and in paper form, which outlined Birmingham City Council’s proposal and

allowed for feedback.

2 Data Sources and Scope

The questionnaire was made available to all Birmingham citizens via BeHeard, and circulated via

social media, local stakeholder groups, interested parties, and children centres. For a full

stakeholder list please contact the Consultation Lead.

The survey ran from on 30 November 2015 until 28 February 2016.



In addition, tender process was initiated and completed for a third party agency to support

questionnaire completed and facilitate workshops. This contract was awarded to Moo Moo

Marketing.

2.1 Moo Moo Marketing

Moo Moo Youth Marketing (Moo Moo) is a progressive public health-centric organisation,

who is passionate about equipping people through innovative communication to make

informed decisions about their health and wellbeing. Their mission is to engage, equip and

empower people through workshops, outreach and marketing campaigns that keep our

peer-to-peer strategy at the forefront.

As part of this consultation, Moo Moo were commissioned to engage with the key

demographics and raise 2000 questionnaires, by focussing on high footfall locations where

the target audience would possibility attend, split into 2 categories, community settings and

educational settings.

Targeted sites included primary schools, soft play areas, shopping centres, Birmingham

library, Birmingham Women Hospital, nurseries, Chinese community centre and LGBT

networking groups. In addition, Moo Moo held 24 events in South Birmingham, 23 events in

the City Centre and 23 events in the North East of Birmingham.

A total of 2007 questionnaires were completed and submitted through Moo Moo, with an

additional 76 questionnaires collated through Survey Monkey online questionnaire also run

by Moo Moo.

3 Responses

The consultation received 3428 completed questionnaires via online, paper and workshop

submissions. Of those, 2083 were obtained by Moo Moo Marketing.

Additional responses were received from two BCC workshops and two responses by formal letter,

and 14 questionnaires were received after the deadline. These responses have not been included in

the response total number but comments raised have been considered and included within the

summaries.



4 Key Findings

Respondents were asked to best describe their interest in the consultation – member of the public,

Early Years Professional, parent or other. Using these identifiers, the following analysis is presented

fewer than three key areas of interest:

Identifier Condition Number of responses

Parents of children aged 4 or

under including expectant parents 1428

Early Years professionals 333

All others

including parents of children aged

5 or older, members of the public

and those who have not indicated

an identify or have identified as

other (GP, midwife, social worker,

teacher, etc)

1667

4.1 Our vision is to provide every child with an equal chance to have a really

good start in life. To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with this

vision?

Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent did they agreed or disagreed with the above

vision statement. Figure 1 below shows responses by the three outlining identifiers.

Overall, 81% indicated they agreed or strongly agreed with the Vision statement, and overall 5%

disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Looking at the groups individually, the All

Others group most strongly agreed with the Vision statement, followed by the parent (under 5)

group. Parents with younger children disagreed most strongly with the statement, with 7% of this

groups strongly disagreeing.

Comments overall were positive, with all groups stating that equal opportunity to access services by

both children and parents would be beneficial. It was suggested that services should be available to

all children, equally, regardless of circumstance or socio-economic background – some further

expanded by stating that services may not need to be offered to all (i.e. everyone receives the same

service) but the service should be made available should any child need that support.

The Parent (under 5) group in particular stated they felt Children Centres provided this already or

would be best suited to signpost or provide access to services. However, better training for staff

and improved understanding and support for children with difficulties, such as autism or disabilities

(but not exclusive to), was cited as needing more attention. Concerns were raised regarding centre

closures and how this vision would actually be delivered with a reduced service.

Early Years (EY) Professionals asked for more clarity on how this vision would be implemented,

measured or monitored – for example, would league tables be used, what demographic measures



would be used (poverty?), etc. EY also echoed comments made by the Parent group, with staff

training and appropriate resources being cited as key concerns. Partnership working was suggested,

with the children centre being in the centre of a holistic and collaborative partnership, not just with

other services (primary care, social workers, etc) but also with parents. Parental support and advice

was also supported, with some suggesting parenting skills and clearer guidance may be appropriate.

Members of the public, parents with older children and those who did not identify with any one

particular group have been collated into “All Others” group. Again this group had similar comments

regarding access – stating all children should be given equal access to services, regardless of

demographic or circumstance. Some cited concerns that by targeting particular groups, there is the

danger of positively discriminating against other groups and whereas others showed concern over

the current “postcode lottery” system. Ante-natal and pre-natal support was valued, as was support

and guidance for parents. It was felt education in schools on parenting and parent skills in general

could be improved.

% BY

GROUP

% OF TOTAL

87% �

8% �

37% �

3% �

94% �

3% �

9% �

<1% �

90% �

3% �

44% �

2% �

Figure 1: Our vision is to provide every child with an equal chance to have a really good start in life (4.1)



4.2 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with our proposals for a

‘Universal Offer’

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the Universal Offer proposal. Figure 2

below shows responses by the three key identifiers.

Overall, 71% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, with 16% disagreeing. Individual groups

remained relatively consistent in agreement with 62-69% agreeing with the statement. Figure 2

below also shows where groups have disagreed, the majority choose “strongly disagreed”.

808 respondents made further comments, 42% of which were made by Parents with children aged 4

or under.

Comments from this Parent group were mixed. Whilst the majority supported Universal Services

and supporting those who are vulnerable, there was concern that a targeted approach may mean

those with greatest need receive services to the exclusion of those with lesser needs. In addition, it

was felt the offer should be available to everyone in a manner that would allow those who needed

the help to access it, regardless of circumstances, and those that felt they did not need additional

support, did not have it forced upon them. There were additional concerns around provision for

children with difficulties and ensuring correct services and knowledge was in place.

This group also was favour of children centres and the work they do, with several stating how valued

the service was and how it supported them. Some have already experienced universal services and

support for the current service was mixed – with some feeling the services in place were adequate

and helped, whilst others felt the service fell short of helping all those we needed it. There was

common consensus that more information about changes to and how they would improve the

service was needed.

EY Professionals shared some common suggestions and concerns with the Parent group. In

particular, there was some thought that everyone should be able to access the service, regardless of

circumstances, and “good parents” should not be discriminated against through reduced access or

children who are deemed to be doing well , should not have services removed. More clarity was also

needed around how need would be identified and assigned and other felt the scope was too narrow.

This group showed support for partnership working, bringing different elements and services

together in collaboration. This would include local services. It was stated that some Children

Centres already worked collaboratively with other services and delivered this provision, and would

be best placed to best placed to continue to offer this support.

The All Other group valued the current universal service and expressed concern over further

changes or possible loss of services. Questions were raised around how the new structure would be

implemented / monitored, and how children would be identified as being in need and parents

engaged.



Similar comments to the EY Professional groups were also made regarding collaborative working,

supporting the need to bring services together and partnership working, but highlighting the need

for consistency and a robust framework. Some also mentioned the need to engage those who are

not currently using early years' services but may, however, have a need for support. Again, similar

comments were made regarding targeting groups at the risk of discrimination, in particular

stigmatising those in need and isolating them from mainstream services.

Parental support, as well as children support, was also deemed important.

% BY

GROUP

% OF

TOTAL

68% �

21% �

28% �

9% �

62% �

29% �

6% �

3% �

69% �

19% �

34% �

9% �

Figure 2: To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with our proposals for a “Universal Offer”

4.3 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the proposal to have

‘universal plus’ services, targeted at children who need more support?

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the proposal to target Universal Plus

services to children who need more support. Figure 3 shows the responses by key group identifiers.

Overall, 77% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement and 13% agreeing. The All Other group

(which includes parents of older children) received the most number of responses and most strongly

agreed with this statement (81%), followed by EY professionals (74%) and parents of younger

children (73%). These latter groups also had the highest number of respondents who disagreed with

14% strongly disagreeing.

The Parent Group (with children under 5) majority agreed with this offer (73% of the group, 31%

overall) with many stating they already used these services through children centres and found them

valuable. It was felt that children (and parents) who needed support should receive it, but not at the

expense of those who would like further support or help (and do not meet the criteria) and those

who are deemed to be doing well. As per the previous question, questions were raised on how child

need would be identified, the requirement for clear criteria and guidelines, and for access to be



available for those that may fall outside of the criteria or are deemed to be doing well, but who may

actually need support. Concerns regarding nursery closures were raised especially by those parents

with children who have learning or physical difficulties.

Early Year Professionals also majority agreed with this statement (74%), further expanding by

stating children centres already provide this provision and have built relationships with parents and

services. It was felt this existing relationship and good practice should be built upon and improve

partnership working. Some noted they experienced difficulties engaging parents (children aged 2

range) and getting support to those who need it, and felt additional work was needed to improve

information made available. It was suggested that this vision could bring services together and help

ensure consistency; improved staff training, monitoring and auditing measures would need to be put

in place and concerns were raised about who would do this and how.

The All Other Group echoed similar comments to the other groups. The majority agreed (81%) with

the proposal, stating the services were valued and necessary, and added services should be available

to all not just a targeted group. They also suggested targeted services may prove detrimental to

other groups who may not be deemed to need support at all or any longer. The need for consistent

communication and promotion of services was stressed, as well as an improved parenting skills

support, especially for younger parents or those with difficulties themselves (such as learning

difficulties).

All groups mentioned the need for more clarity on how existing services would be affected, criteria

and any measures that could be put in place.

% BY

GROUP

% OF

TOTAL

73% �

18% �

31% �

8% �

74% �

15% �

7% �

2% �

81% �

7% �

40% �

3% �

Figure 3: To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the proposal to have "universal plus" services, targeted at

children who need more support?



4.4 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s proposals to

have a ‘single system’ with a lead agency?

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the proposal for a single system with a

lead agency. Figure 4 shows the responses by key group identifiers.

Overall, 68% indicated they agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. This question received

the highest number of “don’t know” or “neither agree nor disagree” responses (14%), the majority

of which were cited by parents. 11% strongly disagreed with this statement (16% disagreeing

overall).

The Parent Group expressed a lower majority agreement for a single system, suggesting a lead

agency would provide a useful sinfgle point of contact and support collaborative working. It was

suggest it may be easier to access information about services and provide easier signposting to

services. However, many also felt this would be too big for one agency to manage and would simple

add another line of bureacracy. This group also called for furthe clarity regardin monitoring and

measures, who the lead agency would be and their responsibilities and how this would impact

services. There was strong support for services to be delivered in their comnunity by local services.

EY Professionals suggested the lead agency would need to have a good understanding on local

groups and services, with the ability to undertake outreach and engage parents within the

community. Simple administration, consistent service delivery framework and transparency were

also suggested. This group felt that parent choice was important and a “one size fits all” approach

may not be effective as needs vary from ward to ward. Local knowledge, it was suggested, may be

lost with job cuts and children centres closures.

The All Others Group voiced their frustration with another change in structure, with one stating they

had experienced a 3 month delay in family support when Solihull’s service changed. This group also

expressed support for a single system, offering simpler pathways, easier access and collaborative

working. Conversely, concerns were raised regarding monopolies, the impact a single system may

have on safeguarding (less personal interaction) and disruption to current provision.

Across all the grooups there was some confusion about was a single system meant and how the lead

agency would operate e.g. some felt the lead agency would be providing all services themselves in

one building. Questions were also raised on how this differed from CAF and MASH already in place.



% BY

GROUP

% OF

TOTAL

65% �

20% �

27% �

8% �

56% �

26% �

5% �

3% �

72% �

52% �

35% �

5% �

Figure 4: To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council's proposals to have a single system with a lead

agency?

4.5 How important, or unimportant, do you think the following services are

as part of the new "Health and Wellbeing Offer"

Respondents were asked how important they felt 8 listed services were as part of the new Health &

Well-Being Offer.

Each response was scored and used to determine a rank per group. A response of very important

was given a score of 2, quite important scored as 1, neither important nor unimportant scored as 0,

quite unimportant scored as -1 and very unimportant scored as -2. The resulting tally and final

rankings are show in Table 1 below.

Please note, “Help for children and families to access Early Years services” was omitted from some

printed questionnaires and therefore the response is significantly lower than for the other services.

The response for this question has therefore been weighted to compensate when calculating the

rankings.

The top three most important services are (in order of final ranking):

1. High quality advice and information to children and families

2. Help for children and families to access Early Years services

3. A range of services to meet the needs of local children

The last important services are:

6. The chance for local children and families to express their views on how services should be run



7. Advertising of local Early Years services

8. Support for the development of local self-help services run by families for families

Overall, rankings for services showed small variances across the three key identifiers, with only the

last two services ((7) The chance for local children and families to express their views on how

services should be run and (8) Referrals for children and families to other services) showing a larger

range of responses, although both were scored lower by all three groups.

Service

Rank

Parents (<5) EY

Professional All Others Overall

Advertising of local Early Years services 6 7 6 7

Help for children and families to access

Early Years services 2 3 1 2

High quality advice and information to

children and families 1 1 2 1

A range of services to meet the needs of

local children 3 2 3 3

Support for the development of local self-

help services run by families for families 8 7 8 8

Local services working together to deliver

services to children and families 4 4 4 4

The chance for local children and families to

express their views on how services should

be run

5 6 7 6

Referrals for children and families to other

services 7 5 5 5

Table 1: How important or unimportant tod you think these services are as part of the new health and wellbeing off?

Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 show responses by question for each of the three key identifier

groups.



Figure 5: How important or unimportant, do you think the following services are as part of the

new "Health and Well-being Offer" (Parents with Children aged 4 or under)

Figure 6: How important or unimportant do you think the following services are as part of the

new "Health and Well-being Offer" (EY Professionals)



Figure 7: How important or unimportant do you think the following services are as part of the

new "Health and Well-being Offer" (All Others)

4.6 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s proposal to

support local self-help services run by families for families?

Respondents were asked to what extent they agree with the Council’s proposal to support local self-

help services run by families for families.

Figure 8 below shows an overall agreement from two identifier groups, Parents (with children under

5) and All Others. The EY Professionals only show 49% agreement. All groups show a marked

increase in the number of "neither agree nor disagree”.

All three groups made similar comments on this question. There was a general acceptance and

support for parent led support groups that would assist parents to share experiences would be

beneficial, providing support and help especially for those who feel isolated or perhaps first time

parents. However, there was concern across all three groups that a peer led only group may

disseminate poor advice or misinformation and safeguarding issues would not be identified. Some

parents expressed reluctance in leading such a service stating that they did not want the

responsibility and some felt uncomfortable with the lack of professional intervention. It was

suggested a professional led group, supported by parents, would be more appropriate, where staff

were appropriately qualified and trained to deal with children in a safe environment, monitor the

child’s health and wellbeing and identify any needs or safeguarding issues.



% BY

GROUP

% OF

TOTAL

61% �

22% �

26% �

9% �

49% �

35% �

5% �

5% �

70% �

12% �

34% �

6% �

Figure 8: To what extent to you agree or disagree with the Council's proposal to support

local self-help services run by families for families?

4.7 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s proposal to

deliver services in the places that children and families use most

regularly?

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the Council’s proposal to deliver services

in the places that children and families use most regularly.

Figure 9 below shows majority agreement of 74-80%, with the parents of younger children

The Parent Group showed 78% in favour of this proposal (by group); access should be made as easy

as possible by utilising local services and community venues. It was suggested Children Centres were

vital community hubs and may be best placed to house other children services. Springfield and

Balsall Health were offered as examples of excellent children centres, whilst Sutton was offered as

an example of a virtual children centre offering services in existing locations, rather than in a static

building setting. This group also stated that children centres were pivotal in allowing parents to

return to work and they should be more widely utilised. Additional utilisation of other settings such

as GPs was welcomed (although not at the expense of closing children centres). However, settings

must be safe, accessible and well advertised.

Early Years Professionals also suggested children centres should be more widely utilised by other

children services, supporting an integrated partnership working model. There were some concerns

over what types of settings would be used (e.g. supermarkets) and proper resourcing was

encouraged – settings should be safe, fit for purpose and the lead agency should undertake

appropriate risk assessments and inspections.

The All Other groups also agreed that local settings would be acceptable if appropriately promoted

and better service engagement took place. Questions were raised over specialised support services

– where would they fit in? – and the need to address barriers to improve service engagement.



Appropriate planning, co-ordinated approach and consistent service delivery were supported,

together with the need to address geographical boundary issues to ensure people near service can

access them (there was the suggestion that people may not be entitled to use services local to them

because they were deemed out of area). “Pop-up” services were not encouraged. Any settings

would need to be sustainable to ensure services can signposted to them and people have consistent

service delivery.

Suggested settings included GPs, schools, nurseries and libraries.

% BY

GROUP

% OF

TOTAL

78% �

14% �

32% �

6% �

74% �

14% �

7% �

1% �

80% �

7% �

39% �

3% �

Figure 9: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the Council's proposal to deliver services in the places that

children and families more use most regularly?

4.8 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the Council’s view to

support the following outcomes

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the Council’s suggested outcomes.

Table 2 below shows the percentage response across all groups, by outcome. Overall, all groups

agreed or strongly agreed with the outcomes (87% average), with 10% (on average) selecting neither

agree not disagree, don’t know or deciding not to answer. Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12 show

the response breakdown by key identifier groups.

This question did not have a comment section.



Outcome Strong

Agree

Somewhat

Agree

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Don't

know

Not

Answered

Increased percentage of

parents in work or training 68% 15% 9% 1% 1% 1% 5%

Improvements in

communication, speech and

language skills for children

83% 10% 2% <1% <1% 1% 4%

Reduction in smoking during

pregnancy and in parenthood 81% 9% 4% <1% 1% 1% 3%

Increase in self-reported

wellbeing amongst parents 65% 20% 8% 1% 1% 2% 4%

Increase breastfeeding

amongst mums at birth/6wks 66% 15% 11% 1% 2% 1% 3%

Reduction in number of

hospital visits due to injury 70% 15% 7% 1% 3% 1% 3%

Reduction in tooth decay 79% 13% 3% <1% 1% 1% 3%

Healthy weight for children 75% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3%

Average 73% 14% 6% 1% 1% 1% 3%

Table 2: Proposed Outcomes (all Groups) %

Figure 10: To what extent do you agree with the Council's view to support the proposed outcomes (Parents with

children 4 or under)



Figure 11: To what extent do you agree with the Council's view to support the proposed outcomes (EY Professionlas)

Figure 12: To what extent do you agree with the Council's view to support the proposed outcomes (All Others)



4.9 Are there any other comments you would like about this consultation.

Please write below

The Parent Group showed support for existing work carried out by children centres, with many

feeling their children centre already delivered these outcomes and should continue to do so. The

need to identify good practice and build upon it was emphasised. Breastfeeding proved the most

emotive outcome, with many stating breastfeeding was a personal choice and mothers should not

feel pressured into breastfeeding. Rather, it was suggested, more emphasis should be placed on

reducing smoking in pregnancy which is harmful to both mother and baby. Several comments were

made on working parents, with some suggesting this was also personal choice and many parents

choose to stay at home to raise their children rather than paid work. It was suggested that pressure

would only isolate those further, although opportunity or support for those that wanted to return to

work should be available.

Early Years Professionals cited the need for more information on how these outcomes would be

monitored and measured, with other expressing concern over the loss of jobs and children centre

closures, which would also impact on the child. The reduction on hospital visits received the least

support (from the comments made), suggesting that in order to reach this target fewer children may

be referred and this may result in more safeguarding issues.

The All Others group felt children centres were vital and support should be available through

community engagement and outreach. There was mixed support for the outcomes with some

suggesting they were personal choice and should not be pushed onto mothers e.g. breastfeeding.

There were also contradictory comments regarding working parents with some supporting the need

for parents to work and others feeling parents should not be pressured into returning to paid work,

with some expanding that caring for your child was full time work and important to the development

of the child. There were some strong negative feelings expressed about current provision and the

need to provide more support for those with difficulties (autism and sensory processing disorder

were mentioned).

A summary of comments can be found in the summary.



5 Demographics

5.1 Of the descriptions below which best describes you

Figure 13 below shows 71% of those who responded identified as parents (includes those who later

stated they had a child). 12% identified as a member of the public (which included those who

identified as grandparents with some child care responsibility) and 10% identified as EY

Professionals. 7% stated other (teacher, GP, etc) or did not answer.

Figure 13: What best describes your interest

(a) If you identified as a parent, what is the age of your youngest child

There were 2074 responses to this question, with 1953 (94% of this group, 57% of all respondents)

stating they had a child aged 16 or under. Of those, 1428 identified with children aged 4 or under

(69% of this group, 42% of all respondents).

Figure 14 below shows child ages given by original descriptor (i.e. how the respondent originally

identified themselves and who went on to give the age of their child).



Figure 14: Age of Youngest Child

5.2 If you are a parent of a child aged 0 – 5 years old have you used Early

Years Services

Figure 15 shows 33% of parents with children aged 4 or under have used Early Year Services, with 4%

stating they had not used any at all.

Figure 16 shows which services have been used and clearly show Children Centres are the most used

services across all three key groups, followed by Health Visitors. Please note, respondents were able

to tick more than one option.

209 of all parents have used all three services (9%) and 111 respondents who stated they did not use

Early Year services, or did not answer, went on to say they had used one of the three services

mentioned.

In addition to these services, the following were also mentioned:

• Breastfeeding services (4)

• Health / development centre (1)

• Family support / Father / Mother / baby groups (6)

• Children hospital (2)

• Speech and language support (2)

• Pregnancy outreach services / worker (4)

• Specific services (e.g. SALT, Sure Start, etc) (4)



Figure 15: If you are a parent of a child aged 0 – 5 years old have you used Early Years Services

Figure 16: Which Early Years Services have you used?



5.3 Would you describe your child as having health or development needs

that would require additional support?

Respondents were asked if they would describe their child as having health or development needs

that would require additional support. Figure 17 shows the number of responses by the three key

identifiers.

1772 people responded to this question (52%) and of those only 9% answered yes (5% for the Parent

with children aged 4 or under).

Figure 17: Would you describe your child as having health or development needs that would require additional support?

5.4 What is your postcode?

Just over half of all respondents provided a complete or partial postcode (54%). A map can be found

at Appendix A showing approximate respondent locations, where full postcodes have been provided.



5.5 Age: Which age group applies to you?

Figure 18 below shows respondent age group. Over 50% of respondents feel with the 25-39 age

range (51%). Figure 19 shows respondent age group by gender and further demonstrates that 27%

of the total number of females respondents, also fell in the same age bracket.

Of the 82 respondents who stated they were 15 or under, 62 stated they were a parent, with 44

stating they had children aged 5 or under. It may be possible the remaining 18 are the result of

inputting errors, in light of the children’s ages being as high as 15. Some respondents may have

interpreted this question as being the age of their child, rather than the age of the respondent.

Figure 18: Which age group applies to you?



Figure 19: Respondent age group and gender

5.6 Gender: What is your sex/gender?

69% of all respondents

were female, 16% male

and 15% did not answer or

preferred not to say.

Figure 20 below shows 48%

of parents with children

aged 4 or under are

female. EY Professionals

are presented across both

genders, although the

number of male

respondents remains

significantly smaller than

the female group.

Figure 20: What is your gender?



5.7 Disability: Do you

have any physical or

mental health

conditions or

illnesses lasting or

expected to last for

12 months or more?

Only 6% of respondents stated

they had a physical or mental

health conditions lasting 12

months or more (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Disability: Do you have any

physical or mental health conditions or

illnesses lasting or expected to last for 12

months or more?

5.8 Ethnicity: What is

your ethnic group?

Nearly half of respondents (49%)

identified as White or White

British. This category also

included White European. This

was followed by Asian / Asian

British with 18% (Figure 22).

Other included Chinese (29), Arab

(9), Turkish, Yemeni, Japanese,

Hispanic, Melanesian and

Japanese.

17% chose not to answer this

question

Figure 22: What is your ethnicity?



5.9 Sexual Orientation:

What is your sexual

orientation?

78% of respondents identified as

heterosexual, with 20% preferring not

to answer (Figure 23).

Figure 23: What is your sexual orientation?

5.10 Religion: What is your

religion or belief?

32% identified as Christian, 27% chose

no religion and 17% Muslim (Figure

24)

Other religions include Sikh (2%),

Hindu (2%), Jewish (8 people),

Buddhist (20), Orthodox (4),

Spiritualist (4), Jehovah’s Witness (2).

Figure 24: What is your religion?



5.11 We are looking for a number of people to become more actively involved

in the design of our new Early Years Health and Wellbeing Offer and

take part in focus groups. If you would be interested in this please put

your details below.

This question received 2083

responses, 61% of all respondents.

Of those that stated they would like

to be further involved in the

consultation, 60% identified within

the All Other groups which includes

members of the public and parents

of older children.

All those with an interest in being

involved are being contacted.

Figure 25: Number of people interested in

becoming more actively involved in the

design of new Early Years Health and

Wellbeing Offer and take part in focus

groups



6 Summary

The Consultation achieved a good representation across gender, ethnic and geographical groups,

with the support of the Children’s Team and external contractor, Moo Moo Marketing. In addition,

workshops and focus groups were held by both BCC and Moo Moo Marketing to engage as many

stakeholder groups as possible and their feedback has been included within the consultation.

The proposed model as outlined in this consultation has been met, overall, with a positive response,

the majority agreeing with the proposed aims and outcomes, whilst also highlighting some areas for

debate.

In particular, CHILDREN CENTRES have consistently been cited as being valued, supportive and

already working in partnership with other services offering a holistic and whole family approach. It

has been suggested Children Centres would offer the opportunity to bring services together in one

place, making the Children Centre the hub for other services to attach themselves too. Some feel, it

is a place where children already go and would be the obvious place for people to go for children

related services. However, not all services are equal and several respondents have mentioned the

need for consistent service delivery, clear criteria, less restrictive boundary markers and better

promotion of services.

SAFEGUARDING remains a large concern. With the proposed closure of some children centres,

many questioned how safeguarding issues would be identified and raised, whether through a lead

agency, smaller community groups or through parent led groups. It is clear further clarity is needed

to ensure safeguarding policies are clearly outlined, staff adequately trained and appropriate

robust measures are put in place to ensure any safeguarding issues are promptly identified and

raised.

STAFF TRAINING was raised. In particular the need for carers, teachers and social workers to

understand socio-economic impacts on families, the ability to understand and meet the needs of

children with learning and physical difficulties, and to be able to offer tailored support for parents

who also have learning or physical difficulties. Centre closures and the loss of jobs did raise the

question how the wide reaching aims of the proposed model would be met, with fewer resources.

Again, consistency was important and should a lead agency be appointed, this agency must have a

clear understanding of parents’ needs, which may vary from ward or ward.

All agreed EQUAL ACCESS FOR CHILDREN was important. However, there were concerns raised by

parents regarding targeting and positive discrimination. It was offered that working parents may not

receive the assistance they need as they do not meet the criteria, and further targeting may further

restrict any access they currently have. It was also suggested that whilst children from several high

risk groups may require immediate or additional support, this should not be at the detriment of

other children who may have a similar need but not meet the criteria. Strong feelings were also

made over the withdrawal of services from children who were deemed to be doing well – groups felt

that this may be detrimental to the child especially if the child is doing well because they are



receiving help. How would these children be further monitored and captured should their

development start to suffer? Consideration should be given to providing clear and transparent

criteria.

Support for PARENTS was deemed important and included general support such as parent skills

training, clear information, support for parents who wish to return to work; and more specific

support in the form of pre-natal support for parents with learning difficulties and help parents

understand child metal development. The outcomes proposed included increased breastfeeding

and an increase in parents returning to work or training. Both received majority agreement,

however, it was raised that both breastfeeding and returning to work was a parental choice, and

parents should not be pressured which may cause further isolation or attach stigma. Better

promotion of services is needed, with trained and supportive staff who understand the needs of

the parent as well as the child.

The proposal for a LEAD AGENCY was met with a mixed response. Overall, all groups were

supportive but felt they needed more information on how the lead agency would be appointed,

managed and monitored before being able to properly judge its merits. Many asked what measures

would be employed to manage the lead agency – would targets be set? Would be the agency be

audited? What KPIs would be asked of it? How would be measure achievement and good practice?

In addition, there was some concern over sustainability and how the agency would (if it would)

interact with local community groups, or ensure buy-in from other services in order to share

information (it was suggested this had proved difficult in the past). Some had experienced a similar

change in care in other areas (Walsall and Solihull were mentioned) which resulted in unclear

communication and long delays in responses, and the groups were keen for this not to happen in

Birmingham. Any changes in care leadership will inevitability involve some change in working

practices and how service is perceived or delivered in areas. Therefore, consideration should be

given to ensuring clear pathways are made available, any changes are transparent and relevant,

and parents engaged in the process in a positive way.

The Council’s proposal to SUPPORT LOCAL SELF-HELP SERVICES RUN BY FAMILIES FOR FAMILIES

was met with some reservation. It was acknowledged that parent networking groups were useful

and many enjoyed the support and sharing of information offered by the groups. Indeed, it was

suggested these groups were valuable in helping parents, particularly first time or young parents.

Still, it was felt that these groups should be led by a qualified professional who could help engage

parents and prevent misinformation or bad advice being given, and identify safeguarding issues or

signpost for additional needs. Some parents stated they felt uncomfortable with the responsibility

of leading such a group and would be cautious being involved in a group without professional

support. There were also concerns for sustainability as parents may come and go from the group

as their circumstances change. More information should be made available as to how this

proposal would function and identify the level of professional support required to ensure

safeguarding and development needs of the child are met.

In addition to the comments above, it was noted the absence of any comments on culture, multi-

languages and faith which has featured in all other public health consultations. It is important to

note that whilst respondents did not mention them in this consultation, they remain important in a

City with such a diverse population and appropriate consideration should be given. Current service



provision may already meet the needs of local community groups, being staffed by members of

those communities and located appropriately. However, the effect of any changes to facilities and

staffing should be considered when resourcing and possibility relocating services.

Overall, the consultation received a positive response, with majority agreement on outcomes and

the proposed model. The need for further clarity and a clear on going consultation with the public

will be key to securing public buy-in and parent engagement in any new service model.

Nicola Pugh

Data Analyst – Customer Insight

Public Health Information Team

March 2016



Appendices

Appendix A: Postcodes

The Map opposite shows respondent

postcodes by the three key identifier

groups.

Please note this is an representative

of respondent geographical local and

some dots may represent more than

one respondent.

Not all respondents provided full

postcodes and are not therefore

shown on the map.


Nov 2015 – March 2016

Appendix B: Consultation Report from Moo Moo Marketing

Birmingham City Council Early Years Consultation Report

Moo Moo Youth Marketing is a progressive public health-centric organisation, that are

passionate about equipping people through innovative communication to make informed

decisions about their health and wellbeing.

Their mission is to engage, equip and empower people through workshops, outreach and

marketing campaigns that keep our peer-to-peer strategy at the forefront.

Moo Moo has a young energetic and multi-cultural Peer Worker team whose confidence

and enthusiasm ensures that the campaign’s messages reach an abundance of people and

targets are met or excelled.

Moo Moo specialises in sexual health screening and we have tested over 250k young people

since we first started back in 2009. We have expended over the last 9 years and now have a

smoking cessation team that works across the midlands with a fantastic quit rate of 50% of

the clients we work with. As well as direct health engagement Moo Moo has also successfully

complete a number of consultation projects for local authorities and the NHS reaching

thousands of local people and targeted groups.

Introduction

Birmingham City Council Commissioned Moo Moo Youth Marketing (Moo Moo) to carry out

consultation questionnaires with regards to the Early Years Health and Wellbeing services

across Birmingham, with the Birmingham Public from mid December 2015 to March 2016.

Brief

Every parent wants the best for their children. We want to support this by providing every

child living in Birmingham with the same chance to have a really good start in life. We feel

this will be achieved if every child has reached a good level of development by the time

they start school.

Early Years Services support parents from the time a child is conceived up until the age of 5.

How well a child does in their Early Years has a huge impact on how they do in the rest of

their lives. Birmingham’s Early Years Services provide support to around 100,000 parents and

80,000 children at any one time. We know that every child is different, each with their own

abilities and needs.

To provide every child with the same chance we need to tailor our services to fit their needs,

targeting resources at those children who need them most. To enable us to deliver the results

we want for children and parents and make best use of our resources, we will need to

radically rethink how we will support children and parents in the future.

Changes of this scale are not changes we can make alone. We need to be open and

honest in relation to the challenges we face. The reductions to our budgets are substantial


Nov 2015 – March 2016

but we are confident that we can still deliver the outcomes we want for our children.

However, we need your input to help us shape the future.

Target

Moo Moo had the target of 2000 questionnaires to be completed and uploaded to Beheard

data base by the 28th February. The target audience for the consultation are: parents,

parents to be, guardians and careers of 0-5-year-old children in Birmingham. Moo Moo

completed and uploaded 2103 questionnaires in just over 2 months, exceeding the target

set which we are extremely pleased with.

Programme Plan

To achieve high number of questionnaires and engagements Moo Moo we focused on high

footfall locations where we believed the target audience would attend. We split this into 2

categories, community settings and educational settings.

Targeted Sites

• Primary Schools

• Soft Play Areas

• Shopping Centres

• Birmingham Library

• Birmingham Woman’s Hospital

• Nurseries

• Chinese Community Centre

• LGBT

Number of Events Across Birmingham

LOCATION SOUTH CITY CENTRE NORTH & EAST

NUMBER OF EVENTS

BOOKED TO DATE

24 23 23

Number Completed Per Area

LOCATION SOUTH CITY CENTRE NORTH & EAST SOCIAL

MEDIA

NUMBER OF

QUESTIONNAIRES

COMPLETED

794

654

579

76

No of Community Setting’s Used No of Educational Settings Used

47 23


Nov 2015 – March 2016

Social Media & Survey Link

We set up a survey monkey link where we advertised on Facebook, which was specifically designed to target

parents/guardians in Birmingham. We also used twitter to promote the survey link by tweeting groups such as

Mums Net, NCT, YMCA etc, through this stream we had 76 people complete the questionnaire.

Schedule and Targets to Date

DATE VENUE ADDRESS AREA ACHIEVED

17/12/2015 Wyndley

Leisure Centre

Wyndley Leisure Centre

Clifton Road

Sutton Coldfield

B73 6EB

Telephone Numbers:

Sports Hall: 0121 464 7741

NORTH 11

18/12/2015 Scallywags 20B Fort Parkway,

(Above Nando’s) City Centre,

Birmingham,

The Fort Shopping Park,

B24 9FP

Tel: 0121 382 4405

NORTH 22

18/12/2015 St Dunstan's

Little Lambs

Play Group

Drayton Rd, Birmingham, West Midlands B14

7LP

SOUTH 5

18/12/2015 Birmingham

City Centre

Outside

Primark

CITY

CENTRE

63

19/12/2015 Funaticz Funaticz, Unit E, Flaxley Parkway, Stechford

Retail Park, Birmingham, 0121 783 0041 West

Midlands B33 9AN

NORTH 24


Library

Centenary Square, Broad St, Birmingham,

West Midlands B1 2ND

CITY

CENTRE

49

04/01/2015 Moo Moo

Office Parents

CITY

CENTRE

7

08/01/2016 Gunter Primary

School

Gunter Road

Erdington

B24 0RU

NORTH 20



Midlands B33 9AN

NORTH 18

08/01/2016 Hickory

Dickory's

3 Findlay Road

Kings Heath

Birmingham

B14 7SN

SOUTH 34



Birmingham,


B24 9FP

Tel: 0121 382 4405

NORTH 36

09/01/2016 Hickory

Dickory's

3 Findlay Road

Kings Heath

Birmingham

B14 7SN

SOUTH 38



NORTH 36


Nov 2015 – March 2016

Birmingham,


B24 9FP

Tel: 0121 382 4405



Midlands B33 9AN

NORTH 63


Library



CITY

CENTRE

11


Library



CITY

CENTRE

33



Birmingham,


B24 9FP

Tel: 0121 382 4405

NORTH 28

15/01/2016 Gunter Primary

School

Gunter Road

Erdington

B24 0RU

NORTH 11


Library



CITY

CENTRE

88

22/01/2016 Hickory

Dickory's

3 Findlay Road

Kings Heath

Birmingham

B14 7SN

SOUTH 31



Birmingham,


B24 9FP

Tel: 0121 382 4405

NORTH 38

23/01/2016 Hickory

Dickory's

3 Findlay Road

Kings Heath

Birmingham

B14 7SN

SOUTH 40


Library



CITY

CENTRE

79



Birmingham,


B24 9FP

Tel: 0121 382 4405

NORTH 20

26/01/2016 Womans

Hospital

Metchley Park Road, Birmingham Women's

Hospital, Birmingham, West Midlands B15 2TG

Phone: 0121 472 1377

SOUTH 42

29/01/2016 One Stop

Shopping

Centre

Walsall Rd, Birmingham, West Midlands B42

1AA

CITY

CENTRE

54

30/01/2016 One Stop

Shopping

Centre


1AA

CITY

CENTRE

64

02/02/2016 Womans

Hospital



Phone: 0121 472 1377

SOUTH 55

04/02/2016 Womans

Hospital



Phone: 0121 472 1377

SOUTH 71

05/02/2016 Just Play Unit One Kings Business Park

715 Kings Road Kingstanding

Birmingham

NORTH 33


Nov 2015 – March 2016

West Midlands

B44 9HP

Telephone: 0121 360 2255

08/02/2016 Womans

Hospital



Phone: 0121 472 1377

SOUTH 56

09/02/2016 Womans

Hospital



Phone: 0121 472 1377

SOUTH 54



Midlands B33 9AN

NORTH 36



Birmingham,


B24 9FP

Tel: 0121 382 4405

NORTH 32



Midlands B33 9AN

NORTH 38


Library



CITY

CENTRE

74

15/02/2016 Womans

Hospital



Phone: 0121 472 1377

SOUTH 55

15/02/2016 Humpty

Dumpty

Unit 3b Ewhurst Avenue

Selly Oak

Birmingham

B29 6EY

T: 0121 472 2786

E: [email protected]

SOUTH 49

16/02/2016 Womans

Hospital



Phone: 0121 472 1377

SOUTH 58

16/02/2016 Humpty

Dumpty


Selly Oak

Birmingham

B29 6EY

T: 0121 472 2786


SOUTH 71



Birmingham

West Midlands

B44 9HP

Telephone: 0121 360 2255

NORTH 31

17/02/2016 Treasure Island

Play/Humpty

Dumpty

Unit 1-2 Northfield Trading Estate, 620 Bristol

Rd S, Birmingham, West Midlands B31 2JR

Phone:0121 411 1213

SOUTH 48



Birmingham

West Midlands

B44 9HP

Telephone: 0121 360 2255

NORTH 32



Birmingham,


B24 9FP

Tel: 0121 382 4405

NORTH 42


Nov 2015 – March 2016

19/02/2016 Humpty

Dumpty


Selly Oak

Birmingham

B29 6EY

T: 0121 472 2786


SOUTH 68

19/02/2016 One Stop

Shopping

Centre


1AA

CITY

CENTRE

88

ONGOING

Baby Sensory

[email protected]

0121 747 4720"

SOUTH 7

ONGOING Anglesey

Primary

Anglesey St, Birmingham B19 1RA CITY

CENTRE

19

ONGOING Little Sutton

Primary School

WORCESTER LANE

SUTTON COLDFIELD

B75 5NL

NORTH 8

ONGOING Grendon

Primary

Grendon Road, Kings Heath, Birmingham,

B14 4RB

SOUTH 5

11/02/2016 Chinese

Community

Centre

CITY

CENTRE

25

11/02/2016 Bright Swans

Nusery

SOUTH 7

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

LGBT CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

San’s Day

Nursery Ltd.

San’s Day Nursery Ltd.

26 Hall Street,

Jewellery Quarter,

Birmingham,

West Midlands

B18 6BS

T: 0121-439 1614

[email protected]

CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

KINDER DAY

NURSERY

KINDER DAY NURSERY

124 LIVERY STREET

BIRMINGHAM

B3 1RS

0121 36 5959

CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

The Old Fire

Station Nursery

69 Albion Street,

Birmingham, B1 3EA

T: 0121 603 0003


CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

The

Roundhouse

Day Nursery

101 St Vincent Street,

Ladywood,

Birmingham, B16 8EB

P: (0121) 236-8900

Email: [email protected]

CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

The Elms Day

Nursery

"The Elms Day Nursery

33 Edgbaston Park Road

Edgbaston

Birmingham

B15 2RS

0121 414 8118

Selina Hunt"

SOUTH

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

The Oaks

Nursery

The Oaks Nursery

Bristol Road

Selly Oak

Birmingham

SOUTH


Nov 2015 – March 2016

B29 6LG

0121 414 7999

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

Anchor Day

Nursery

Anchor Day Nursery,Lozells Rd, Birmingham

B19 2TL

Phone:0121 515 2538

CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

Aston

University

Nursery and

Pre-School

Aston University Nursery and Pre-School,Email:

[email protected]

CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

Cotton Tails

Day Nursery

Cotton Tails Day Nursery,Northfield

[email protected]

Manager: Michelle Tompkins

SOUTH

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

TOTO DAY

NURSERY

202 & 207 Streetly Road, Erdington,

Birmingham B23 7AH

Telephone: 0121 382 3321

Email: [email protected]

NORTH

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

Highfield

Nursery

[email protected]

4, 3 Highfield Rd, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15

3ED

Phone:0121 454 1170

SOUTH

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

Superstars Day

Nursery

[email protected] 12 Golds Hill

Rd, Birmingham B21 9DJ

Phone:0121 507 0570

CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

Bright Kids

Nusery

[email protected] 18-20 Norman

Rd, Birmingham B31 2EW

Phone:0121 475 4788

CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

Busy Bees

Nusery

[email protected]

Birmingham, Richard Street, Aston B7 4AA

Phone:0121 333 3733

CITY

CENTRE

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

See Saws Day

Nusery

[email protected] 1

Avenue Rd, Birmingham B23 6UY

Phone:0121 350 6521

NORTH

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

Norfolk House

Nusery

[email protected] 3 Norfolk

Rd, Birmingham B15 3PS

Phone:0121 452 1485

SOUTH

ONGOING

SURVEY LINK

ST PAUL’S

NURSERY

ST PAUL’S NURSERY

405a Belchers Lane

Bordesley Green

Birmingham

B9 5SY [email protected]

Telephone: 0121 773 1748

NORTH

DEC-FEB SURVEY

MONKEY LINK

SOCIAL MEDIA

76

TOTAL QUESTIONNAIRES COMPLETED 2103

Workshops Completed

• 17/12/2016-Wyndley Leisure Centre Stay and Play Group-Sutton Coldfield

• 18/12/2015-St Dunstan’s Catholic Church Little Lambs Baby and Toddler Group-Kings

Heath

• 14/1/2016-Birmingham Library-Broad Street

• 8/2/2016-Anglesey Primary School & Nursery (completed by teachers and translator)

• Chinese Community Centre-(completed by translator & management at Chinese

Community Centre)


Nov 2015 – March 2016

Public Feedback

This consultation is extremely close to home for the majority of people we engaged with

across Birmingham over the past 3 months with views and feedback being very mixed. There

is a common theme, which is an underlining fear of the unknown. The public is aware of the

cuts that the council is having to make, which has contributed to the uncertainty and fear

demonstrated in the feedback uploaded to Beheard. Most people think a single system

makes sense and it will make it easier to find and access the help they need.

The most common feedback:

• Are community centre’s closing- “This makes sense, but seems to mean closures of

building/facilities”

• Every child deserves a good start in life- “Every child deserves the right to an equal and

good start in life”

• Early years so important- “Early years’ support is a fundamental foundation for later

success/happiness/health. Important to get this right early on”

• What services are being cut- “This makes sense, but seems to mean closures of

building/facilities”

• Mum’s shouldn’t be pressured into breastfeeding- “More proper support for continuing

breast feeding, rather than just concentrating on the weight of the baby. Specialist help to be

readily available”

• Single System seems logical- “A single system would be less confusing and more flexible for

the 'users’. It would need to be very organised (good administration)”

• More advertisement is need of services- “prominent advertisement would be more

effective than targeted promotion” “Parents need to be informed of different services and

things available for them, most are unaware of what they can access and that there are even

services around for them”

• Consultation is very long and complicated- “The wording of this consultation is very

biased. I have read the whole document and feel (produced in the summer) the questions are

put in a way that it would be hard not to agree with. It does not talk about loss of services and

ask how people feel about that or closing children centres. It is also very difficult for many

parents to understand and fill in”

• How will it work with financial constraints - “I have concerns about how to maintain under

financial constraints?”

• Universal Plus Should be open to all- “services should be available/accessible to all. Don't

take away services from kids doing well because it will be detrimental to them” “Who would

decide need? Affluence doesn't always mean child/parents don't need support. Shouldn’t be

limited e.g parenting classes, children centres for all not just vulnerable”

• Services should be easily accessible- “Important to have local services though so families

don't have to travel long distances to access services”

• How can you increase the percentage of parents going into work or training? -

“Increased parental employment is ideal BUT childcare need to be affordable. The free 15 hours can't

be used if parents are working full time-this is extra cost for wrap around hours, therefore parents

who can't afford the extra hours can only work part time, limiting employment opportunities and the

hours are only available term time”

• Better communication between services- “Greater links between services-

Pregnancy-Birth-Post Natal-Care for mum and baby/toddler”


Nov 2015 – March 2016

Key Learnings from Delivering Consultation

We were consciously aware that we need to make sure we have a fair proportion off

time/events spent across different areas of the city, we planned and worked to achieve a

fair representation of the different demographics within the City of Birmingham. We have

made sure we have an even spread of events and sites distributed with the link to the

questionnaire as well as our team visiting targeted sites/locations.

After the first couple of events, particularly the street outreach event around the Bull Ring, it

was clear that the consultation could take up to 15 minutes to complete and was quite

complex and involved a great amount of dialogue between the public and our team, which

a majority of public didn’t have time to take part in. It was also apparent from the

questionnaires we did in the street engagement wasn’t as high as we normally achieve, so

we changed our approach to focus on locations in doors where people had time to fill in the

questionnaire. This worked well, as the 3 shopping centre events within the One Stop

Shopping Centre were successful.

We found that soft play areas were the best places to access parents as not only did we

have the target audience but we were achieving large volumes of recipients with great

feedback. In total we worked with 7 soft play sites across Birmingham, the sites were

extremely supportive and accommodating.

Schools where very difficult to get on board; this was mainly due to not having the

capacity/time to help and in a couple of cases the contact given did not reply to emails

and answer phone messages. The schools that we did get on board were very supportive

and wanted to give parents a chance to have their say. We thought we would have

achieved higher numbers through schools but the amount handed out to parents and what

was sent back was extremely low.

We also targeted the woman’s hospital and arranged to attend 8 pre-natal clinics, which

enabled us to access parents, parents to be and also professionals who work within the Early

Years sector.

Conclusion

Moo Moo Youth Marketing ran a highly successful consultation project across Birmingham

reaching 2103 people, to allow them to have their views on the proposed changes. Our

planning of where we conducted the workshops and outreach meant that we were able to

reach our target audience, so the sample could give a true picture of attitudes and opinions

from parents/guardians and careers in the city. Our team thoroughly enjoyed delivering the

consultation and working with the different venues across Birmingham.

Documents

Birmingham Public Health Early Years Health & Wellbeing ...€¦ · Nov 2015 – March 2016 Birmingham Public Health Information & Intelligence Team Contents ... new "Health and Wellbeing