75 Hodge Hill 1,277 13 5.9% 57 Kings Norton 984 19 5.8% 52 Oscott 900 27 5.8% 80 Bordesley Green 1,420 6 5.6% 61 Stockland Green 1,091 12 5.6% 59 Billesley 1,069 22 5.5% 64 Weoley 1,191 21 5.4% 83 Aston 1,596 4 5.2% 65 Soho 1,285 9 5.1% 73 South Yardley 1,506 14 4.8% 73 Lozells and East Handsworth 1,508 5 4.8% 94 Washwood Heath 2,145 1 4.4% 44 Bournville 1,068 32 4.1% 26 Moseley and Kings Heath 687 25 3.8% 68 Springfield 1,839 16 3.7% 35 Quinton 963 30 3.6% 51 Handsworth Wood 1,409 24 3.6% 38 Northfield 1,094 29 3.5% 37 Perry Barr 1,095 31 3.4% 68 Sparkbrook 2,013 2 3.4% 23 Harborne 683 33 3.4% 29 Ladywood 947 10 3.1% 19 Sutton New Hall 637 39 3.0% 23 Hall Green 897 36 2.6% 28 Sutton Trinity 1,125 38 2.5% 19 Sutton Vesey 809 37 2.3% 12 Sutton Four Oaks 879 40 1.4% 12 Edgbaston 1,692 34 0.7% Source: Insight Data December 2014 – Of the 11 wards with 6.7% or more of their population as NEETs, only 3 are in the top 10 deprived wards, although Tyburn is 11th most deprived. So, unlike the NEET count (table 1), there are not high percentages of NEETs in highly deprived areas. This suggests other factors, other than the size of the local young population and deprivation, are at play. So what is it about these areas or the people living there that makes them more likely to be NEET? Why is provision not meeting the needs of young people in these areas? The above analysis suggests young people in the following wards should be targeted for NEET interventions: Table 3: Priority wards by percentage and count of NEETs Number of NEET by Ward Mid High % NEET of -Washwood Heath 16-18 Low -Aston population
Hodge Hill 1,277 13 75 5.9% Kings Norton 984 19 57 5.8% Oscott 900 27 52 5.8% Bordesley Green 1,420 6 80 5.6% Stockland Green 1,091 12 61 5.6% Billesley 1,069 22 59 5.5% Weoley 1,191 21 64 5.4% Aston 1,596 4 83 5.2% Soho 1,285 9 65 5.1% South Yardley 1,506 14 73 4.8% Lozells and East Handsworth 1,508 5 73 4.8% Washwood Heath 2,145 1 94 4.4% Bournville 1,068 32 44 4.1% Moseley and Kings Heath 687 25 26 3.8% Springfield 1,839 16 68 3.7% Quinton 963 30 35 3.6% Handsworth Wood 1,409 24 51 3.6% Northfield 1,094 29 38 3.5% Perry Barr 1,095 31 37 3.4% Sparkbrook 2,013 2 68 3.4% Harborne 683 33 23 3.4% Ladywood 947 10 29 3.1% Sutton New Hall 637 39 19 3.0% Hall Green 897 36 23 2.6% Sutton Trinity 1,125 38 28 2.5% Sutton Vesey 809 37 19 2.3% Sutton Four Oaks 879 40 12 1.4% Edgbaston 1,692 34 12 0.7% Source: Insight Data – December 2014 Of the 11 wards with 6.7% or more of their population as NEETs, only 3 are in the top 10 deprived wards, although Tyburn is 11th most deprived. So, unlike the NEET count (table 1), there are not high percentages of NEETs in highly deprived areas. This suggests other factors, other than the size of the local young population and deprivation, are at play. So what is it about these areas or the people living there that makes them more likely to be NEET? Why is provision not meeting the needs of young people in these areas? The above analysis suggests young people in the following wards should be targeted for NEET interventions: Table 3: Priority wards by percentage and count of NEETs Number of NEET by Ward Mid High % NEET of 16-18 population Low -Washwood Heath -Aston
evidence-young-people-commissioning-priorities-v2feb2015.docx