Agenda item

At the September Health and Wellbeing Board, Members agreed to develop a Social Progress Index (SPI) for Surrey to measure real lived experience of residents, focusing on social and environmental outcomes only. This will provide a helpful measure of ‘fulfilling potential’ in Surrey to help understand how individuals are living and progressing within District and Borough Wards and who is being left behind.

Witnesses:

Satyam Bhagwanani - Head of Analytics and Insight (SCC)

Amy Morgan - Policy and Programme Manager for Health & Social Care Integration (H&Sci) (SCC)

Simon Hart - Independent Chair of the Surrey Children’s Safeguarding Partnership

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The Head of Analytics and Insight introduced the report and explained that the Social Progress Index (SPI) aligned to the Board’s third priority of all fulfilling their potential.
2. Fundamental to the SPI was the collaboration between the SPI Working Group with the Social Index Imperative, to which there would be a workshop in March bringing together multi-agency data owners across the county. With the aim to agree Surrey’s choice of indicators for the SPI, providing a holistic view of Surrey and the wider determinants of health inequality.
3. An early version of the SPI would be shared with the Board in June and the full SPI would be completed by summer. The Head of Analytics and Insight noted that it was an ambitious timeline and the main risk was data collection from many partners, urging Board members to support the quick signoff on data where possible.
4. Responding to Board members’ queries on the purpose of data collection, the Head of Analytics and Insight replied that the SPI would be outcomes focused by evaluating where populations were at across the county and at ward level, economically, socially and environmentally. The Chairman added that the SPI ensured the objective identification of the top ten areas of deprivation within the county, with multidisciplinary teams to provide a range of solutions for different areas - which would overlap and develop some of the Board’s KPIs.
5. A Member of the Board noted that the SPI was piloted in Elmbridge which identified regional solutions there but was concerned that ward level data collection would be more complex. In response, the Chairman noted that obtaining ward level data was crucial as he cited the example of the difference in life expectancy between certain wards in Waverley. A Member of the Board added that despite a very high percentage of good GCSEs results in Surrey schools, schooling in deprived wards was comparably poor and he stated that schools should be a beacon of opportunity and not a mirror of deprivation.
6. The Policy and Programme Manager discussed that from a public health perspective, the SPI would be an important step in mapping out health inequality, highlighting areas where there was good or bad access to community facilities.
7. The Chairman commented that one important initiative of the Council was the £100 million Community Investment Fund to support key initiatives, recognising the shifting narrative of public health being community led.
8. The Independent Chair of the Surrey Children’s Safeguarding Partnership took a proactive interest in assisting the SPI, noting the importance of including safeguarding.

RESOLVED:

The Board members would:

1. Emphasise the SPI ambition within partner organisations.
2. Secure executive level agreement/support to share data.

Actions/further information to be provided:

Board members will emphasise the SPI ambition within partner organisations and secure executive level agreement to support the sharing of data.