Children, young people and families outcomes framework - core wellbeing indicators: analysis

3. What I need from the people that look after me

The ‘What I need from the people who look after me’ side of the My World Triangle relates to the critical influences of other people in a child or young person’s life and the support they can provide. Primary caregivers have the most significant role and influence, but the role of siblings, wider family, teachers, friends and community figures can also be important.

Key findings

• Looking at peers, in 2021-22, 84% of children and young people in P5 to S3 agreed that their friends treat them well. This was consistent across sex and stage.
• However, 31% of children and young people in P5 to S3 said they had experienced bullying in the last year. Respondents in primary stages and living in more deprived areas were more likely to report having been bullied.
• Across both questions children and young people with long term health conditions, additional support needs and caring responsibilities had worse outcomes.
• Looking at support from adults, in 2021-22, 67% of children and young people in P5 to S6 said they always had an adult in their life who they can trust and talk to about any personal problems.
• In 2021-22, 57% of children and young people in P5 to S6 agreed that adults are good at taking what they say into account.
• Girls, young people in secondary stage and children and young people with a long term health condition were less likely to have a trusted adult and to agree that adults take their views into account.
• Looking at services, 89.4% of daycare of children services offering funded Early Learning and Childcare places were evaluated as good or better in all quality themes in 2021. This was similar across area deprivation quintiles and rural and urban areas.
• A protection from harm indicator will be available from 2023-24 data onwards.

3.1 Peer relationships

The peer relationship indicator is the percentage of children and young people in P5 to S3 who agree that their friends treat them well. This was chosen over other peer relationship measures as it is applicable to all children and reflects the quality of relationships. Please note that this indicator comes from the Health and Wellbeing Census and figures presented here are the aggregated results for those 16 local authority areas who collected data, and are not weighted to population totals.

This indicator relates to the Included, Nurtured and Safe outcomes.

In 2021-2022, 84% of children and young people in P5 to S3 strongly agreed or agreed that their friends treat them well. Three percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

The main socio-demographic differences within this variable were:

• Children and young people with a long term health condition were less likely to say that their friends treat them well (80%) than other children and young people (87%).
• Similarly, children and young people with additional support needs were slightly less likely to say that their friends treat them well (82%) than other children and young people (85%), although the difference was smaller.
• Children and young people with caring responsibilities were less likely to say that their friends treat them well (82%) than other children and young people (86%).

Percentages were roughly similar by stage, sex, area deprivation, rurality and ethnicity.

3.2 Bullying

The bullying indicator is the percentage of children and young people in P5 to S3 who were bullied in last year. This is a population wide measure of harm that was prioritised by children and young people themselves in engagement work reviewed. Please note that this indicator comes from the Health and Wellbeing Census and figures presented here are the aggregated results for those 16 local authority areas who collected data and are not weighted to population totals.

This indicator relates to the Safe and Respected outcomes.

In 2021-2022, 31% of children and young people in P5 to S3 said they had experienced bullying in the last year. 12% preferred not to say.

The main socio-demographic differences within this variable were:

• The prevalence of bullying consistently decreased with stage, from 41% in P5 to 20% in S3.
• The prevalence of bullying consistently increased with area deprivation, from 26% in the 20% least deprived areas to 34% in the 20% most deprived areas.
• There were substantially higher percentages saying they had been bullied among those with a long term health condition (45% compared with 26% among others) and among those with additional support needs (38% compared with 30% among others).
• Respondents with caring responsibilities were substantially more likely to report having been bullied (35%) than others (22%).

Percentages were roughly similar by sex. Differences by ethnicity and rurality were relatively small and did not display a consistent pattern.

3.3 Trusted adult

The trusted adult indicator is the percentage of children and young people in P5 to S6 who always have an adult in their life who they can trust and talk to about any personal problems. This was chosen as the most suitable high level measure for relationship with adults. Other measures available for quality of relationship with a particular adult (e.g. mother, father, teacher) are not applicable to the life circumstances of all children and young people. Please note that this indicator comes from the Health and Wellbeing Census and figures presented here are the aggregated results for those 16 local authority areas who collected data and are not weighted to population totals.

This indicator relates to the Nurtured, Safe and Included outcomes.

In 2021-22, 67% of children and young people in P5 to S6 said that they always have an adult in their life who they can trust and talk to about any personal problems, with a further 24% saying that they sometimes do. Five percent said they did not have a trusted adult and four percent preferred not to say.

The main socio-demographic differences within this variable were:

• The percentage of children and young people who said they always had a trusted adult varied substantially by stage and was higher in primary stages and lowest in later secondary stages. The highest percentage was 75% in P6 and the lowest 57% in S4.
• Boys were more likely to say they always had a trusted adult (70%) than girls (64%).
• The percentage of children and young people who said they always had a trusted adult consistently increased as area deprivation decreased, from 65% in the 20% most deprived areas to 70% in the 20% least deprived areas.
• Percentages who said they always had a trusted adult varied by urban-rural classification areas but not in a consistent direction. The lowest percentage of children and young people who said they always had a trusted adult was 64% in remote small towns, and the highest 69% in accessible rural areas.
• The percentage of children and young people who said they always had a trusted adult was lowest in those from the Black/Caribbean – Other (50%) and Asian – Bangladeshi (51%) groups. It was highest in the White – Gypsy/Traveller (72%); White – Scottish (68%) groups.
• Children and young people with additional support needs were slightly less likely to say they always have a trusted adult (64%) than others (67%).
• Children and young people with caring responsibilities were slightly less likely to likely to say they always have a trusted adult (63%) than those without caring responsibilities (67%).
• Children and young people with a long term health condition were substantially less likely to say they always had a trusted adult (57%) than those with no long term health condition (72%).

3.4 Involvement in decision making

The involvement in decision making indicator is the percentage of children and young people in P5 to S6 who agree that adults are good at taking what they say into account. This is a widely used and agreed measure of participation and influence on decision making. Please note that this indicator comes from the Health and Wellbeing Census and figures presented here are the aggregated results for those 16 local authority areas who collected data and are not weighted to population totals.

This indicator relates to the Respected and Responsible outcomes.

In 2021-2022, 57% of children and young people in P5 to S6 agreed that adults are good at taking what they say into account. 11% disagreed. A large percentage of 24% said they didn’t know.

The main socio-demographic differences within this variable were:

• Primary school age children were substantially more likely to agree that adults are good at taking what they say into account than older young people in secondary school. The percentage was highest in P5 (63%) and P6 (64%) and lowest in S4 (48%) and S5 (49%).
• Boys were substantially more likely to agree that adults are good at taking what they say into account (62%) than girls (52%). The gap in findings by sex was higher in secondary school stages than primary school stages.
• Looking at ethnicity, the percentage agreeing that adults are good at taking what they say into account was lowest within African – Scottish or British (56%), Asian – Bangladeshi (57%) and Asian Chinese (57%) groups, and highest in White – Gypsy Traveller (77%), Arab (68%) and Asian – Indian (68%) groups.
• There was a small, but consistent, difference in findings by area deprivation, from 56% in the 20% most deprived areas to 59% in the 20% least deprived areas.
• Respondents with a long term health condition were substantially less likely to agree that adults are good at taking what they say into account (49%) than other children and young people (62%).

Percentages were roughly similar by additional support needs and caring responsibilities. Differences by rurality were small (3 percentage points) and not consistent.

3.5 Quality of services

The quality services indicator is the percentage of settings providing funded Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) achieving Care Inspectorate grades of good or better across all four quality themes. This was chosen as a nationally and locally available measure of service quality, relating to a universal service that is taken up by a very large percentage of parents. It was also chosen because it and provides coverage of pre-school age groups on which there is limited data.

This indicator relates to the Nurtured, Included and Achieving outcomes.

In 2021, 89.4% of daycare of children services offering funded ELC places were evaluated as good or better in all four quality themes. This is a slight decrease compared to the 90.8% reported in 2020. As Figure 3.3. shows, there has been a slight downward trend in the percentage of settings achieving good or better grades across all quality themes from a peak in 2014.

As this indicator relates to settings rather than individuals, there is no demographic data. There were some differences by geographical areas, but these did not follow a consistent pattern. In terms of area deprivation, the percentage achieving good grades was lowest in the 20% least deprived areas (87.3%) but there was not a linear pattern within other area deprivation categories. In terms of urban-rural classification, settings in accessible rural areas were most likely to achieve good grades (92.9%) while those in remote small towns were least likely to achieve good grades (85.3%).

3.6 Protection from harm

The protection from harm indicator is the number of children and young people subject to Interagency Referral Discussions. This was identified as the most suitable protection from harm measure as it represents the earliest stage in the child protection process from currently available data.

This indicator relates to the Safe, Respected, Nurtured, Healthy, Achieving and Included outcomes.

It is expected that national reporting on this indicator will be available from 2023/24 onwards. Interagency Referral Discussion management information has been collected monthly since May 2020, and data between then and May 2023 has been published via the Vulnerable Children and Adult Protection Monitoring returns dashboard. However, these figures are released as management information which means they are not subject to the same level of quality assurance as National Statistics and will not be used as a baseline once national reporting becomes available. They have therefore not been included in this report.